'-.'.' 


/ ./6 ,  /7 


^  ti^t   S^^nlngtfft/ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


BV    598     .M34 
Maguire,    Edward 
Xo     schism    la'wful? 


IS    SCHISM   LAWFUL? 

A    STUDY    IN    PRIMITIVE    ECCLESIOLOGY 
WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE 
QUESTION    OF   SCHISM 


pail  mmt: 

JOANNES   WATERS, 

Censor  Theol.  Deput. 

fmpvimi  ^ateist: 

►I*  GULIELMUS, 

Archiep.  Dublinen., 

HiBERNI/E   PrIMAS. 
DuBLlNl,  die  2:f°  Maiif  1915. 


IS  SCHISM  LAWFUL? 

A  STUDY   IN    PRIMITIVE   ECCLESIOLOGY 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE 

QUESTION  OF  SCHISM 


Presented  to  the  Theological  Faculty  of  St.  Patrick's         ^--^ 
College,  Maynooth,  as  a  Thesis  for  ^-f-'i^^ 

the  Degree  of  Doctor 


REV.    EDWARD  MAGUIRE 

Dunbo3me  Establishment,  Maynooth  College 


DUBLIN 
M.   H.    GILL    AND    SON,   Limited 

AND    WATERFORD 
I9I5 


Printed  and  Bound 


IN   Ireland 


M.  H.  GILL  &  SON,  Ltd.,  Dublin  and  Waterford. 


PREFACE 

In  compiling  this  work  I  have  derived  much 
assistance  from  the  French  historians:  Batiffol, 
Duchesne,  and  Tixeront.  My  indebtedness  to 
other  authors  and  publications  will  be  found 
acknowledged  in  the  notes. 

I  must  cordially  thank  Dr.  Cleary  for  his  kind- 
ness in  reading  the  entire  work  for  the  press. 

E.  M. 


DuNBOYNE  Establishment, 
Maynooth  College, 
April,  1915. 


CORRIGENDA 

Page    95  (n.)  for  Kplvetv  read  Kpareiv, 
„     287  s(/g.    „  Tanquery  read  Tanquerey. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE    V 

INTRODUCTION 

Societies — Principle  of  social  unity — Subjects — For- 
feiture of  rights — Symbols  of  authority — What 
divides  a  society  ? — Secession  sometimes  lawful — 
Field  of  inquiry xi-xx 

CHAPTER  I 

The  New  Dispersion 

Christianity  social — ^The  local  community  an  external 
society — The  Church  and  the  Synagogue — The 
Church  Universal^ — ^The  two  Dispersions — The 
New  Dispersion  an  organic  unit — Parties  in  the 
Apostolic  Church     .....  1-36 

CHAPTER   II 

ECCLESIOLOGY   OF   St.  PaUL 

Epistle  to  the  Ephesians — Other  Pauline  letters — 

Protestantism — Unity  of  the  Spirit — Schism      37-64 
Excursus  :  Ecclesiology  of  St.  Peter       .         .         65-66 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   III 
The  Personal  Teaching  of  Jesus 

PAGE 

The  Christ  in  prophecy — ^The  kingdom  in  prophecy — 
Realization  of  the  Messianic  prophecies  in 
Jesus  —  The  kingdom  in  the  gospels  —  The 
kingdom  spiritual — The  kingdom  catholic — In- 
visible unity  of  the  kingdom — The  kingdom  a 
visible  society — Government  of  the  kingdom — 
The  Primacy — St.  Matthew's  gospel  "ecclesias- 
tical "  —  Hierarchy  enduring  —  Schism  never 
lawful 67-114 

Excursus  :  Christianity  and  Paulinism  .         .     115-118 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Apostolic  Fathers 

The  Didache — The  Epistle  of  Clement — Ecclesiology 
— Ignatian  Epistles  —  The  local  church  —  The 
Church  Universal  —  Schism  —  The  Roman 
primacy — Polycarp — Other  early  writers   .     119-153 

CHAPTER   V 
Justin  Martyr 

Truth — Clu'istianity  cosmopolitan  and  catholic 
— Christianity  individualistic  —  Christianity  a 
unit  —  The  Way  of  Salvation  —  Reason  and 
authority — Heresy  and  schism  .         .     154-165 

Excursus  :  Celsus  and  Origen         .         .         .     166-170 


CONTENTS  ix 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Adversus  Haereses 

PAGE 

History — Doctrine — Rule  of  faith — Literpretation  of 
iii.  2 — Greneral  argument  of  passage — Dr.  Words- 
worth— Christianity  a  deposit — The  Church  the 
body  of  Christ — Indwelhng  of  the  Spirit — 
Church  membership  —  Heresy  and  schism — 
Summary  —  Testimony  of  Hegesippus  —  The 
Easter  Controversy  ....     171-203 

CHAPTER  VII 

St.  Cyprian,  Bishop  and  Martyr. 

Life — Ecclesiology — The  local  church — ^The  Church 
Universal — De  Unitate — ^The  Baptismal  Con- 
troversy— The  Roman  primacy  .         .    204-241 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Section  A. — The  Donatist  Schism 

History — ^The    Circumcellions — Doctrinal    position — 

Ecclesiology 242-257 

Section  B. — Theology  of  St.  Augustine. 

Rule  of  faith — Ecclesiology — Theology  of  the  sacra- 
ments         258-265 


*  * 
* 

General  Summary 266-273 


X  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   IX. 
Theological. 

PAGE 

Schism  —  Great  Western  Schism  —  Dr.  Gore  on 
schism — Excommunication — Dogmas — Heresy — 
Anglican  principles  of  Church  unity — Church 
membership — ^The  Vine — ^The  "  soul  "  of  the 
Church — The  social  body — Congress  of  Velehrad 
—Criticism 274-307 

Appendix  A — Independent  and  democratic  theories 

of  Church  polity 308-316 

Appendix  B. — Protestantism  and  visible  unity     317-318 

Index 319-323 


INTRODUCTION 

A  WAR-CIRCULAR  recently  issued  by  His  Majesty's 
Grovemment  to  the  oversea  dominions  lays  stress 
on  "  the  fundamental  unity  of  the  Empire  amidst 
all  its  diversity  of  situation  and  circumstajices." 
It  is  an  acknowledged  fact ;  our  scattered  pos- 
sessions cohere  in  some  way.  British  citizens  the 
world  over  constitute  a  rounded  whole.  They  are 
members  of  a  single  association  which  is  quite 
distinct  and  separate  from  corresponding  associa- 
tions of  aliens.    The  Empire  is  a  social  unit. 

Analysing  the  concept  of  a  society,  we  find  that 
it  contains  three  elements.  To  begin  with,  there 
is  the  aggregate  of  individuals  incorporated  by 
visible  initiation.  Recruits  become  soldiers  by 
going  through  certain  external  formalities  ;  aliens 
become  British  citizens  by  a  certificate  of  naturali- 
zation. A  member  of  a  society  ceases  to  be  such 
only  when  the  act  of  initiation  by  which  he  was 
incorporated  is  nullified. 

Every  society  has  its  proper  end  or  purpose. 
Men  form  associations  to  attain  by  joint-action 
some  object  which  is  difficult  or  impossible  of 
attainment  by  solitary  effort.  The  State  has  for 
its  end  the  promotion  of  the  common  good  ;  and, 
in  these  times  of  stress,  the  reader  does  not  require 
to  be  told  of  the  purpose  and  utility  of  armies. 

Principle  of  Social  Unity.—  The  third  and  most 


xii  •  INTRODUCTION 

important  element  in  a  society  is  authority. 
Herein  we  discover  the  primary  principle  of  social 
unity,  A  multitude  is  one  because  the  individual 
units  which  make  it  up  are  juxtaposed  in  space  ; 
a  school  of  thought  is  one  because  its  members 
stand  by  common  principles.  But,  in  a  society, 
the  cohesive  element  is  something  more  effective 
and  enduring.  Here  members  hold  together 
through  the  medium  of  external  rule,  which 
directs  and  controls  their  activity  in  view  of 
the  common  end.  No  society  can  exist  as  such 
without  a  ruling  authority.  This  is  true  of  even 
an  anarchist  club. 

British  journalists  now  speak  of  Alsace  and 
Lorraine  as  provinces  which  were  "  torn  from 
the  bleeding  side  of  France."  The  imagery  is 
singularly  appropriate ;  a  State  bears  a  close 
analogy  to  the  living  body. 

A  lion  unwarily  treading  the  jungle  finds  himself 
suddenly  in  the  hunter's  net.  Instantly  the  teeth 
are  bared,  the  eyes  flash  fire,  and  every  nerve  and 
sinew  is  strained.  The  whole  animal  is  roused  and 
his  members  unite  in  a  joint-struggle  for  liberty. 
The  net  has  to  contend  not  with  a  group  of  members 
acting  separately,  but  with  an  organization. 
Injury  to  any  one  is  the  concern  of  all. 

A  Umb  succeeds  in  extricating  itself,  and  im- 
mediately sets  to  work  to  release  its  fellows.  Be 
it  noted,  however,  that  its  intervention  is  not 
quite  disinterested.  It  rescues  others  simply 
because  it  stands  to  lose  by  injury  to  them.     In 


rNTRODUCTION  xiii 

any  organism  the  well-being  of  each  member,  as 
such,  is  conditioned  by  the  well-being  of  its 
fellow-members  and  of  the  whole. 

The  joint-action  here  is  perfectly  ordered ; 
control  is  by  the  vital  principle.  When  the  body 
is  attacked  or  menaced  afferent  nerves  flash  the 
intelligence  to  head-quarters.  The  brain  at  once 
grapples  with  the  situation,  so  to  speak,  and  by 
means  of  efferent  nerves  communicates  with  all 
the  members,  calling  upon  each  to  do  its  part 
towards  safeguarding  the  whole.  If  the  organism 
is  healthy,  the  response  to  the  call  is  immediate 
and  general. 

So  in  the  State.  A  short  time  ago  the  German 
ambassador  at  London  was  handed  his  passports. 
The  British  Empire  felt  menaced,  and  the  Head 
called  upon  the  members  to  do  their  duty.  The 
response  was  general.  Roused  to  action  by  the  re- 
cognition of  a  common  danger,  the  colonies  flocked 
to  the  Imperial  colours  ;  and  Canadians,  Austra- 
lians, Indians,  and  Africanders  made  their  way  to 
the  battlefields  of  Europe,  where  they  now  fight 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  their  fellow-subjects 
from  these  islands.  Each  member  feels  that  to 
defend  the  whole  is  to  defend  himself. 

Hence  such  terms  as  "  body,"  "  corporate 
whole,"  *'  organization,"  "  organic  unit,"  &c., 
applied  to  a  society,  are  as  appropriate  as  they  are 
suggestive.  For,  as  the  living  body  is  an  organiza- 
tion energized  by  a  vital  principle  which  secures 
the  well-being  of  the  whole  by  ordering  the  activity 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  members,  so  a  society  is  an  association  of 
human  beings  controlled  by  an  external  authority 
in  view  of  a  common  end.  Government  is  to  a 
society  what  the  vital  principle  is  to  the  body  ;  it  is 
the  primary  bond  of  organic  solidarity.  The  Empire 
is  one,  because  it  has  a  single  central  authority  to 
which  British  citizens  everywhere  are  subject. 

Subjects. — Membership  in  the  State,  as  in  any 
society,  since  citizens  are  bound  to  promote  the 
common  good,  imposes  certain  obligations.  These 
obligations  they  fulfil  by  obeying  the  Head. 

But  who,  it  will  be  asked,  are  bound  to  obey  the 
Head — to  observe,  say,  the  laws  of  the  British 
Empire  ?  The  question  looks  simple,  and  many 
will  be  inclined  to  answer  at  once  that  British 
subjects  without  exception,  and  these  only,  are  so 
bound.  But  let  us  reflect  a  little :  what  of  the 
Belgian  refugees  ? 

As  we  understand  the  virtue  of  obedience,  it  is 
capable  of  being  exercised  only  by  members 
towards  their  Head  ;  it  is  only  subjects  who  obey. 
Resident  aliens  do  not,  and  cannot,  owe  obedience 
to  the  British  Sovereign  as  such.  We  note  that 
it  is  only  on  naturalization  an  alien  is  required  to 
take  the  oath  of  allegiance. 

True,  the  Belgian  refugees,  while  resident  amongst 
us,  observe  the  laws  of  the  Realm  apparently  after 
the  manner  of  subjects,  and  are  bound  to  do  so. 
But  the  obhgation  in  their  case  is  not  one  of 
obedience  properly  so-called  ;  it  arises  altogether 
out  of  an  implied  contract.     On  admission  to  the 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

country,  they  tacitly  undertake  to  observe  certain 
regulations  in  return  for  the  protection  they  are 
about  to  receive  ;  and  hence,  though  guilty  of  breach 
of  contract  and  liable  to  the  usual  penalties  if  they 
fail  to  observe  the  laws  which  the  central  authority 
has  laid  down  for  their  guidance,  they  are  not 
guilty  of  disobedience.  In  character  their  offence 
is  analogous  to  that  of  a  railway-passenger  who 
smokes  in  a  non-smoking  compartment. 

It  is  only  members,  then,  who  are,  or  can  be, 
bound  to  obey  the  Head  ;  and,  conversely,  a  ruler 
can  exact  obedience  only  from  his  subjects.  Any 
one  who  is  bound  to  obey  the  Head  is  thereby 
shown  to  be  a  member.  Actual  subjection  to  the 
ruling  authority  in  any  society  is  a  formal  test  of 
membership  in  the  same. 

Forfeiture  of  Eights. — A  British  subject,  while 
retaining  his  membership  in  the  State,  may  forfeit 
his  rights  as  a  citizen  partially  and  even  totally. 
Generally  speaking  the  forfeiture  is  only  partial ; 
as  happens,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  imprison- 
ment, which  restricts  an  offender's  personal  liberty. 
Where  the  forfeiture  is  total,  the  punishment  is 
known  as  outlawry.  It  is  important  to  note  that 
even  outlaws  are  members  of  the  State.  They  have 
no  rights ;  and  yet  remain  bound  in  obedience 
towards  the  Head. 

Symbols  of  Authority.— The  flag  is  a  recognized 
symbol  of  sovereign  authority.  Every  mdependent 
State  has  its  distinctive  banner ;  and  hence  when 
a  province  or  colony  effectively  secedes,  it  sets  up 

\ 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

at  once  a  new  flag.  Change  of  flag  symbolizes 
change  of  sovereignty.  When  a  victorious  general 
makes  his  formal  entry  into  a  conquered  city,  one 
of  his  first  acts  is  to  replace  the  standard  of  the 
vanquished  Power.  Christian  De  Wet  on  a  recent 
occasion  announced  that  he  would  pull  down  the 
Union  Jack  at  Pretoria  and  proclaim  an  inde- 
pendent South  African  Republic. 

The  keys  also  were  in  olden  times  a  recognized 
symbol  of  government.  When  a  free  city  fell  to  a 
besieging  force,  the  keys  of  the  gates  were  formally 
delivered  to  the  conqueror,  who  was  thus  symboli- 
cally invested  with  supreme  jurisdiction  over  the 
persons  and  property  of  the  vanquished.  The  key 
as  a  symbol  of  control  is  still  recognized  at  law. 
A  tenant  or  purchaser,  for  example,  is  held  to 
obtain  control  of  a  house  or  premises  at  and  through 
delivery  of  the  key. 

What  divides  a  Society  ? — If  the  primary  principle 
of  unity  in  every  society  is  the  supreme  social 
authority,  it  follows  that  a  radical  division  can 
take  place  only  by  repudiation  of  the  flag.  When 
a  portion  of  any  kingdom  makes  good  a  secession, 
then  and  only  then  is  the  social  unity  essentially 
disrupted. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  important  principle  by  a 
few  concrete  examples.  A  number  of  British 
subjects,  let  us  suppose,  not  only  disobey  a  certain 
law,  but  form  a  league  and  pledge  themselves  to 
resist  by  force  of  arms.  The  Ulster  Unionists  at 
one  time  announced  their  intention  of  adopting 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

some  such  course  in  the  event  of  the  Home  Rule 
Bill  becoming  law.  Here  there  is  question  of 
armed  resistance  to  recognized  authority.  It  is  not 
proposed  to  divide  the  Empire  by  setting  up  a  new 
flag — nee  nominetur  ;  the  recalcitrants  acknowledge 
the  Head  and  merely  repudiate  its  mandate. 

Even  civil  war  leaves  the  social  unity  essentially 
intact.  By  civil  war  I  mean  war  between  two  or 
more  portions  of  a  State,  each  contending  for 
mastery  of  the  whole  and  each  claiming  the  flag. 
The  bloody  and  protracted  struggle  between  the 
Houses  of  York  and  Lancaster  during  the  Wars 
of  the  Roses  was  a  struggle  for  the  same  crown. 
Neither  party  contemplated  a  disruption  of  the 
kingdom ;  they  recognized  a  common  flag  and 
merely  disputed  as  to  who  should  hold  it. 

Not  so  the  American  "War  of  Independence. 
Here  it  was  a  clear  case  of  a  radical  breach.  The 
Representatives  of  the  seceders  in  Congress 
assembled  proclaimed  that  "  the  United  Colonies 
are  of  right  and  ought  to  be  Free  and  Independent 
States."  Hence  with  the  Peace  of  1782,  by  which 
Britain  acknowledged  without  reserve  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  separated  colonies,  a  new  Power  was 
recognized,  and  a  new  sovereignty  was  symbolized 
by  a  new  flag.  The  Boer  movement,  which  is 
just  now  engaging  the  attention  of  the  British 
Government  in  South  Africa,  is  similar  in  character. 

A  society,  then,  is  radically  divided  only  when 
a  section  of  its  members  repudiate  the  flag.  In  the 
State,  armed  resistance  to  the  Head  disturbs  but 


xvui  INTRODUCTION 

does  not  quite  disrupt.  The  same  is  true  of 
revolution  and  of  civil  war,  if  these  be  understood 
as  armed  movements  which  have  for  their  ultimate 
object  a  mere  change  in  the  form  or  personnel  of 
the  existing  government.  No  movement  which 
stops  short  of  secession  is  radically  separative.  One 
flag  one  society  ;  and  there  will  be  as  many  societies 
as  there  are  flags. 

Secession  Sometimes  Lawful. — It  is  recognized 

that,  in  certain  circumstances,  secession    may  be 

legitimate.     In  this   respect,  we  fancy,  the  State 

bears  some  analogy  to  the  household.    The  latter, 

too,  is  a  society  controlled  by  the  domestic  Head. 

During  the  period  of  adolescence,  children  remain 

members   and   are  bound  to   obey  the   parental 

authority.    But  when  a  child  has  grown  to  man's 

estate,  we  know  that  he  is  at  liberty  to  "  leave 

father  and  mother,"  and  to  found  an  independent 

home.    His  parents  may  withhold  their  sanction  ; 

they   may  even   use   force   to   restrain   him.     It 

matters  not ;  he  acts  within  his  strict  rights,  and 

hence    is   free   to    override   their   opposition.     If 

necessary,  he  may  even  meet  force  with  force.    The 

breach  effected,  he  ceases  to  owe  them  obedience  ; 

by  setting  up  a  new  authority  he  has  validly  and 

lawfully  repudiated  the  old. 

So  it  is  in  the  State.  Colonies  have  their  period 
of  infancy  and  adolescence ;  they  have,  or  they 
ought  to  have  their  period  of  manhood  as  well. 
When  they  become  capable  of  independent  self- 
control — sufficiently    strong    to    engage    in    the 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

struggle  for  existence,  and  to  grapple  single- 
handed  with  rivals  and  opponents — the  law  of 
nature  gives  them,  in  certain  circumstances,  a 
right  to  "  leave  father  and  mother  "  and  to  set 
up  a  new  flag. 

When  secession  is  legitimate  it  should  be  effected 
peaceably.  In  our  own  time  Norway  cut  itself 
adrift  from  Sweden  without  striking  a  blow. 
Generally,  however,  a  breach,  even  when  perfectly 
legitimate,  entails  a  conflict  with  the  repudiated 
authority.  In  such  cases  it  is  lawful  for  the 
seceders  to  organize  themselves  in  military  fashion 
and  make  good  their  cause  by  force  of  arms. 

Field  of  Inquiry. — The  reader  is  now  in  a  position 
to  understand  in  a  general  way  the  scope  of  a 
work  which  professes  to  be  a  study  in  primitive 
ecclesiology,  with  special  reference  to  the  question 
of  schism.  We  shall  begin  with  an  examination 
of  historical  Christianity.  We  shall  ask  ourselves 
if  the  glad-tiding  which  was  announced  for  the 
first  time  in  Palestine,  some  two  thousand  years 
ago,  was  only  a  tiding.  Did  those  who  received  the 
new  message,  in  the  first  instance,  constitute  a  mere 
school,  or  did  they  form  societies  ;  and  if  they 
formed  societies  did  these  take  shape  as  isolated 
and  autonomous  units  or  was  there  an  aJl-round 
federation,  a  society  of  all  societies,  a  church  of 
aU  the  churches  ? 

Having  satisfied  ourselves  as  to  the  character  of 
the  new  '  tendency,'  as  it  actually  realized  itself  in 
the  world,  we  shall  proceed  in  the  second  place  to 


XX  INTRODUCTION 

inquire  into  its  antecedents.  Many  modem  critics 
who  grant  that  historical  Christianity  was  social, 
deny  that  it  was  such  de  iure.  Ecclesiasticism, 
they  tell  us,  finds  no  place  in  the  personal  teaching 
of  Jesus.  We  shall  see  if  this  novel  contention  can 
be  sustained. 

The  ecclesiology  of  the  Ante-nicene  period  will 
engage  our  attention  in  the  succeediag  chapters. 
Taking  as  our  sources  of  information  the  extant 
literature  of  the  first  three  centuries,  we  shall  try 
to  determine  the  views  of  the  early  Christian 
writers  on  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the 
Church. 

Should  we  find  that  the  Christianity  of  the  New 
Testament  and  the  Fathers  is  a  single  external 
society,  we  shall  devote  a  concluding  chapter  to  the 
development  of  an  analogy  between  the  Church  of 
Christ  and  the  British  Empire.  Membership  in  the 
State  is  acquired  by  birth  as  well  as  by  naturaliza- 
tion ;  and  is  relinquished  not  only  by  death,  but 
by  expatriation  and  by  successful  rebellion.  Is  the 
same  true — mutatis  mutandis — of  membership  in 
the  Church  ?  In  fine,  secession  from  the  civil 
society  is  sometimes  legitimate.  Is  the  same  true 
of  the  ecclesiastical  society  ? — is  schism  lawful  ? 
Far  schism  is  simply  secession  from  the  Church, 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    NEW  DISPERSION 

Jerusalem  was  the  birth-place  of  the  Christian 
Church.  It  was  the  morning  of  Pentecost  29  A.D. 
A  group  of  Galilean  fishermen,  led  by  one  Simon 
Peter,  suddenly  began  to  proclaim  in  the  city  that 
in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  crucified  and  risen,  they  had 
found  the  Messias.^  In  Him  alone  was  salvation. 
To  be  saved  one  should  do  penance,  accept  certain 
truths  proposed  by  the  new  preachers,  and  submit 
to  a  peculiar  form  of  washing  known  as  "  baptism.^ ^ 
Following  a  sermon  to  this  effect  delivered  by 
Simon,  a  digest  of  which  has  come  down  to  us,^ 
some  three  thousand  souls  "  believed."  ^ 

The  Local  Church 

Christianity  Social. — The  new  religion  was  con- 
gregational from  the  first ;  the  earliest  converts 
held  together.  To  a  man  they  rallied  to  Simon 
Peter  and  his  companions  and  formed  a  community.* 
New  converts  were  admitted  to  membership  as 
they  were  made.    ''All  that  believed  were  together , 

^  Ac.  ii.  14  sqq.  ^  ib.  v.  41. 

2  ib.  ^  Koiv(Dvia,  ib.  V.  42. 

1  A 


2  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

and  had  all  things  common  .  .  .  and  the 
Lord  added  to  them  daily  those  that  were  being 
saved."  ^ 

For  a  time  all  went  well.  Despite  bitter 
opposition  from  priests,  Sadducees  and  others,  the 
community  of  the  fishermen  grew  apace.  The  Lord 
increased  them^  .  .  .  and  men  magnified  them.^ 
But  their  hour  was  to  come.  A  violent  persecu- 
tion, originating  in  the  trial  and  martyrdom  of 
St.  Stephen,  forced  the  entire  community  to  fly  the 
mother-city,  the  apostles  alone  remaining.*  With 
indomitable  fortitude  the  fugitives  made  their  way 
through  the  districts  of  Judea  and  Samaria, 
preaching  the  "  gospel  "^  as  they  went  and  con- 
verting many.^  Organized  to  extinguish  it  utterly, 
the  persecution  was,  in  effect,  a  means  of  spreading 
the  New  Light. 

From  the  very  outset  external  fellowship  char- 
acterized the  followers  of  Jesus,  wherever  or  by 
whomsoever  converted.  This  is  history.  Christian 
communities  came  into  being  wherever  the  gospel 
was  preached.  A  community  established  at 
Antioch  by  the  fugitives  from  Jerusalem  we  find 
figuring  conspicuously  in  the  early  stages  of  the 
Christian  development.    Paul,  an  emissary  of  the 


1  Ac.  V.  47  (R.  v.).  ^  Ac.  v.  13. 

^  ih.  ii.  47.  *  ib.  viii.  1. 

5  A.    Sax.  Godspell — God  (good)    and    spell  (tidings) ;  Gr. 
(vayyeXiov,  the  name    given    to  the  doctrinal  basis  of    the 
new  reUgion. 
•  Ac.  viii.  4. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  3 

community  at  Antioch  set  up  local  associations 
wherever  he  preached.  These  he  named  "  churches^ 
The  establishment  of  one  "  church "  for  the 
residents  of  each  city  or  district  ^  he  regarded  as 
the  sole  purpose  of  his  mission  to  them.  This  end 
attained,  he  commended  his  new  converts  to  the 
Lord  and  at  once  betook  himself  to  fresh  fields.'^ 
Into  the  existing  local  church  all  those  subsequently 
converted  in  the  district  were  incorporated  as  a 
matter  of  course.  "  Unattached  "  brethren  were 
unheard  of.^ 

The  local  community  an  external  society. — The 
local  community  was  an  organic  unit.  It  was  a 
church.*  The  brethren  in  each  district  formed  a 
well-defined   and   exclusive   association   to   which 


*  No  city  or  district  however  large  had  more  than  one 
church.  In  this  Christianity  contrasted  with  Judaism  which 
admitted  several  distinct  synagogues  in  a  large  city  or  area. 
By  "churches"  and  "synagogues"  the  reader  will  under- 
stand here  not  buildings,  or  places  of  meeting,  but  Christian 
and  Jewish  associations  respectively. 

2  Ac.  xiv.  23. 

'  Harnack  emphasizes  this  historical  fact.  {What  is 
Christianity?  pp.  102-3,  155  sqq.) 

*  The  English  word  "  church  "  primarily  signifies  a  sacred 
building  [Gr.  rh  KvpiaKov — "  the  Lord's  house,"  Sc.  kirk,  O.E. 
chirche,  A.  Sax.  circe  (c's  hard),  Dan.  kirke,  G.  Kirche.].  In  a 
secondary  or  transferred  sense  it  represents  the  cKKkija-la  of 
the  New  Testament. 

To  a  Greek  the  eKK\ija-ia  was  "  an  assembly  of  the  citizens 
summoned  by  crier,  the  legislative  assembly  "  (Lidd.  and 
S.),  ruled  by  elected  office-bearers.  To  a  Jew  it  had  been 
the   community    of    the    elect    (Hebr.    qahal) — the   chosen 


4  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

only  'the  saved '^  "were  added."  ^  "All  who 
believed  were  together  ;  .  .  .  but  of  the  rest  no 
man  durst  join  himself  unto  them."^  Non- 
members  were  "  outsiders  " — ol  efw,  the  brethren 
being  referred  to  as  o/eo-w— "the  initiated."* 
The  penitent  Saul  returning  from  Damascus  to 
Jerusalem  experienced  some  difficulty  in  having 
himself  "  joined  to  the  disciples.''^  The  new  fellow- 
ship was  a  visible  society. 

Members  were  capable  of  effective  cooperation. 
We  find  them  combining,  at  one  time  to  have 
doctrinal  differences  authoritatively  adjusted,*  at 
another  to  relieve  the  indigent,'  again  to  establish 
and  maintain  by  subscriptions  a  permanent  local 
fund.^  The  community  as  such  despatched  and 
received  letters  and  emissaries.     It  was  capable  of 

people.  To  Greeks  and  Jews  alike  the  word  connoted 
visible  organic  unity. 

In  the  New  Testament  (KKXtja-La  (singular)  has  a  variety  of 
applications.     It  denotes  : 

(a)  The  local  church  (Ac.  xi.  22,  26  ;  xii.  1-5  ;  xiii.  1  ; 

xiv.  27  ;  XV.  4  ;  XX.  7  :  1  Thess.  i.  1  ;  2  Thess.  i.  1  ; 

1  Cor.  i.  2  ;  \i.  4  ;  2  Cor.  i.  1  ;  Rom.  xvi.  1,  23,  etc.). 

(6)  The  actual  assemblage  of  the  local  church  (Ac.  xv.  22  ; 

1  Cor.  xiv.  4,  19,  34-5  ;  xi.  18  ;  3  John  v.  6). 
(c)  The  "  house  " — church  :  (1  Cor.  xvi.  19  ;  Rom.  xvi.  5). 
{d)  The   sum-total   of   the   churches   of   several  districts 

(Ac.  ix.  31) 
(e)  The  Church  Universal   (Col.  i.    18-24  ;   Eph.   i.  22  ; 
iii.  10,  21  ;  v.  23-5  sqq.    Gal.  i.  13  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  19). 
1  Ac.  ii.  47.  *  cfr.  1  Cor.  v.  12  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  7. 

-  ih.  vv.  41-44.  ^  Ac.  ix.  26. 

^  ib.  V.  44,  V.  13.         ^  ib.  xv. 
7  ib.  xi.  29,  30.  s  Philipp.  iv.  15,  16  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  1,  2. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  6 

rigorously  boycotting  the  pagan  law-courts.^  Its 
members  came  together  at  an  appointed  time  and 
place  to  "  break  bread."  ^  In  all  this  we  discover 
effective  cooperation  and  joint-action  of  a  kind 
which  is  possible  only  on  the  basis  of  external 
organization. 

We  already  know  the  marks  of  a  society.^  The 
local  church  had  a  visible  rite  of  initiation.  The 
procedure  of  Philip  in  converting  the  eunuch  may 
be  taken  as  typical.  The  eunuch  seated  in  his 
chariot,  was  reading  a  passage  from  Isaias  when 
Philip  came  up  :  Whereupon  "  Philip,  opening  his 
mouth  and  beginning  at  this  Scripture,  preached 
unto  him  Jesus."  The  eunuch,  becoming  con- 
vinced, expressed  a  desire  for  baptism.  "  And 
Philip  said  :  '  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart, 
thou  may  est.'  And  he  answering  said  :  '  I  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.'  Then  they 
went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him."'»  Acceptance  of 
certain  doctrines  is  demanded  as  a  condition  for 
baptism.  Philip  said :  "  //  thou  believest  thou 
may  est,''  Nothing  could  be  clearer.  Baptism 
makes  the  Christian.  Faith  is  a  condition  for 
baptism. 

Men  "  repent  and  believe  the  gospel "   for  a 


^  1  Cor.  vi.  1  sqq. 

2  One  fixed  day  each  week.       1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  cfr.  ib.  x.  16  ; 
xi.  18-20,  Ac.  ii.  7. 
^  V.  supra,  Introd. 
*  Ac.  viii.  35-38. 


6  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

common  purpose.  They  become  Christians  to  save 
themselves.  Peter's  first  sermon  in  the  streets  of 
Jerusalem  made  this  clear :  "  Repent  and  be 
baptized  "  he  said,  "  every  one  of  you.  .  .  .  Save 
yourselves  from  this  perverse  generation."  ^ 
'  Salvation  through  Jesus '  was  the  watchword  of 
the  early  Christian  missionary.  "  Believe  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ "  said  Paul  to  the  jailor  at 
Philippi  "  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  ^  To  reject 
'  the  word '  was  to  perish.  When  Silas  and 
Timothy  arrived  at  Corinth  from  Macedonia  they 
found  Paul  "  earnest  in  preaching,  testifying  to 
the  Jews  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  But,  they  gain- 
saying and  blaspheming,  he  shook  his  garments 
and  said  to  them :  Your  blood  be  upon  your  own 
heads  :    I  am  clean."  ^ 

Lastly,  in  each  local  community  there  was  a 
ruling  authority.  Let  us  just  glance  at  the  evidence. 
To  begin  with,  we  note  the  fact  that  unworthy 
aspirants  were  denied  admission  to  the  Christian 
fellowship,*  while  disgraceful  or  refractory  members 
were  excommunicated.^  Herein  we  recognize  an 
exercise  of  that  authority  which  vests  in  every 
social  unit  however  rudimentary  its  organization, 
whereby  it  can  determine  effectively  who  are,  and 
who  are  not,  to  be  accounted  its  members. 

In  every  church  there  existed  from  the  beginning 
a  select  body  who  taught  with  authority  and  ruled 
the   entire   community.      The    mother-church    at 

1  Ac.  ii.  38-40.  2  ib.  xvi.  31.  ^  n,  xviii.  5,  6. 

*  ib.  viii.  37  ;  ix.  26.  ^  i  Coj.  y  5 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  7 

Jerusalem  was  at  first  shepherded  by  the  apostles. 
By  them  aspirants  to  membership  were  admitted 
or  excluded.^  They  took  charge  of,  and  adminis- 
tered the  common  purse ;  "^  and  when  the  Greeks 
complained  that  their  widows  were  being  treated 
unfairly  in  the  daily  ministration,  the  apostles  had 
seven  deacons  elected  whom  they  appointed  "  to 
serve  the  tables."  ^ 

In  the  mother-church  at  a  somewhat  later 
period,*  and  in  every  Christian  community  outside 
Jerusalem  from  the  first,  there  existed  a  body  of 
ecclesiastical  superiors  who  were  known  as 
"  elders  "  or  "  overseers."  ^    These  were  appointed 

1  cfr.  Ac.  ix.  27.  2  ^-^^  j^  37 

^  And  yet  we  find  the  ablest  Protestant  apologists  contend- 
ing that  the  mother-church  at  Jerusalem  had  a  democratic 
form  of  government,  and  acted  on  the  conviction  that  the 
authority  bestowed  by  Christ  on  His  Church  belonged  to  the 
whole  congregation  and  not  to  an  apostolic  hierarchy.  "  The 
Apostles,"  we  are  told,  "  might  suggest,  but  the  congregation 
ruled."  (Lindsay,  The  Church  and  the  Ministry  in  the  Early 
Centuries,  p.  32.)  One  is  positively  at  a  loss  to  understand 
how  any  intelligent  student  of  the  Acts  can  defend  this 
position  "  with  perfect  honesty  of  heart  and  of  head " 
{cfr.  Ac.  vi.  1-6). 

*  ib.  XV.  4. 

^  The  titles  Trpeo-^urtpos  and  iirla- koto's  are  apparently 
synonymous  in  the  New  Testament  {cjr.  Ac.  xx.  17-28).  The 
further  question  as  to  whether  all  superiors  so  named  were  of 
equal  standing  does  not  concern  us. 

Ecclesiastical  superiors  have  other  titles.  The  encyclical 
"  to  the  Ephesians "  speaks  of  "  Trot/xevcs  koi  StSoo-KaAot," 
while  in  the  epistles  to  the  Hebrews  and  to  the  Romans 
superiors  are  entitled  ol  -qyovfifvoi  and  ol  Trpolb-Ta/xevot  re- 
spectively. (Eph.  iv.  11;  Hebr.  xiii  7,  17;  Rom.  viii.  8; 
cfr.  1  Thess.  v.  12.) 


8  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

in  each  church  by  the  apostles  themselves  or  by 
their  delegates  or  successors.^  When  Paul  and 
Barnabas  had  preached  '  the  word  '  at  Antioch, 
Iconium,  Lystra,  and  Derbe,  and  had  made  many 
converts,  "  they  appointed^  to  them  elders  in  every 
church."  ^  Titus  is  instructed  to  set  up*  elders  in 
every  church  in  Crete ;  ^  and  Timothy  receives  a 
like  commission  for  Ephesus.® 

^  Ecclesiastical  superiors  were  not  appointed  by  the  faithful. 
Scriptural  passages  which  have  been  cited  to  prove  that  they 
were,  merely  show  that  the  local  elders  were  sometimes  elected 
by  the  faithful ;  and  this  is  not  denied.  The  same  passages 
make  it  perfectlj''  clear  that  the  elders  even  when  elected  by 
the  faithful  were  invariably  ordained  by  the  apostles  or  by  their 
delegates  or  successors. 

^  Gr,  xf'/'OTovTjo-avxe?.  Advocates  of  the  "  popular  "  theory, 
including  one  of  the  most  scholarly  of  living  exegetical 
critics — Edward  Meyer — ,  contend  that  the  use  of  the  word 
by  St.  Luke  shows  that  the  elders  in  question  received  their 
appointment  by  popular  election.  "  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
them  elected  to  office."  The  best  Greek  authorities  are  agreed, 
however,  that,  while  its  primary  meaning  was  undoubtedly 
"  to  elect,"  the  word  x^'^o'^oveiv  came  afterwards  to  mean 
simply  "  to  appoint."  This  is  its  ordinary  meaning  in  Hellen- 
istic Greek.  Josephus  e.g.  uses  it  of  David's  elevation  to  the 
kingship  by  God  {cfr.  Dale,  Manual  of  Congregational  Prin- 
ciples, p.  68). 

Hence  BatiflFol  is  scarcely  accurate  when  he  states,  in  con- 
nection with  the  ecclesiology  of  St.  Ignatius,  that  the  verb 
X^ipoToveiv  always  signifies  to  elect.  ("  Le  verbe  x^*/'<"'°''"*' 
signifie  toujours elire  " — Primitive  Catholicism,  Fr.  ed.,  p.  157  n.) 

*  Ac.  xiv.  23. 

*  Gr.  Karacrrijcrjji. 

*  Tit.  i.  5. 

®  cfr.  1  Tim.  iii.  1  sqq.,  v.  22. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  9 

The  extant  letters  of  the  other  apostles  imply 
that  "presbyters"  were  to  be  found  in  every 
church  to  which  they  wrote.  Peter  addressing 
"  the  strangers  dispersed  throughout  Pontus, 
Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bithynia  has  a 
special  word  to  say  to  '  the  elders ' "  ;i  while  the 
Catholic  epistle  of  James  instructs  "  the  infirm  '' 
to  have  themselves  anointed  by  "  the  elders  of  the 
Church."  2 

It  is  not  difficult  to  satisfy  oneself  as  to  the 
general  nature  of  the  early  presbyteral  or  episcopal 
office.  The  elders  or  overseers  were  authoritative 
teachers  and  rulers.  They  were  pastors  of  the  local 
community.  The  elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus 
are  admonished  by  Paul  to  "  take  heed  unto  them- 
selves and  to  all  the  flock  wherein  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  placed  them  overseers  to  shepherd  {-rroiiJ.aiveiv) 
the  church  of  God."  ^  Peter,  similarly,  in  a  passage 
to  which  we  have  already  referred,  exhorts  the 
elders  to  shepherd  {iroifidvare)  the  Christian  flock ;  * 
while  the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
insists  upon  obedience  and  subjection  to  ecclesiastical 
superiors.^  The  elders  at  Jerusalem  we  shall  find 
legislating  for  the  entire  church  in  what  is  usually 
described  as  the  first  general  council.® 

Professor  Sohm's  theory  of  church  origins  is 
unscriptural.    For  him  the  church  is  essentially  an 


1  1  Pet.  V.  1,  2.  4  1  Pet.  loc.  cit. 

2  James  v.  14.  ^  Hebr.  xiii.  17. 

3  Ac.  XX.  28.  6  Ac.  XV.  23. 


10  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

invisible  society.  The  earliest  Christian  com- 
munities, he  tells  us,  were  not  organized.  "  Law 
and  the  world  of  spiritual  things  are  diametrically 
opposed."  When  the  brethren  came  together 
"  for  the  word  "  or  "  to  break  bread,"  the  assembly 
was  "  ruled  "  by  outpourings  of  the  Spirit, — ^those 
charismata  which  figure  so  prominently  in  the 
history  of  primitive  Christianity.  From  this  pneu- 
matic or  charismatic  anarchy — describe  it  how  you 
will — was  gradually  evolved  a  stable  hierarchy.^ 

The  theory  cannot  stand  ;  it  fails  to  take  account 
of  the  facts.  Harnack  examines  it  closely,  but 
only  to  set  it  aside  as  being  utterly  unhistorical. 
There  existed  in  each  church,  from  the  very  outset, 
a  stable  hierarchy  which  authoritatively  taught 
and  ruled  the  community.  This  hierarchy  con- 
trolled even  the  exercise  of  charisms.^ 

Harnack,  it  is  worthy  of  note,  lays  stress  on  the 
fact  that  the  historical  church  was  bom  organic,^ 
though  he  contends  that  such  was  the  case  only 
de  facto  and  not  de  iure.  Christ,  he  says,  never 
intended  that  His  followers  should  constitute  a 
society.  This  theory  will  come  up  for  examination 
in  its  proper  place.*  Here  we  merely  note  how 
significant  it  is  that  a  critic  of  Harnack' s  undoubted 


*  cfr.  Hamack  :    What  is  Christianity?  p.  110.    Bat.  op.  cit., 
pp.  xvi— xviii,  130,  143  sqq. 

2  cfr.  1  Cor.  xiv.  6-36. 

*  cfr.  What  is  Christianity?  p.  155. 

*  ch.  iii. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  II 

acumen  should  concede  that  the  mfant  church  took 
shape  from  the  firsf^  as  a  community  of  Christ's 
immediate  disciples,  ^  even  though  he  refuses  to 
admit  that  it  did  so  as  the  result  of  a  mandate 
emanating  from  the  Master. 

The  Church  and  the  Synagogue 
In  Christianity  Judaism  finds  its  fulfilment,  its 
realization.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  crucified  and  risen 
is  "  the  expected  of  nations  "  ;  His  Church  is  the 
messianic  kingdom.  Such  was  the  form  in  which 
"  the  glad-tiding "  was  announced  by  the  new 
preachers  to  the  seed  of  Abraham. 

Historically  the  Church  of  Christ  was  born  of  the 
synagogue.  The  broad  facts  are  well  known. 
Setting  out  to  evangelize  the  world  the  early 
missionaries  found  themselves  confronted  with  a 
vast  empire  which  had  been  planted  with  syna- 
gogues.^ They  would  plant  it  with  Christian 
churches. 

The  mode  of  procedure  was  uniform  and  intel- 
ligible. The  children  would  first  be  filled,  the  dogs 
subsequently.*    The  Jews,  Hellenistic  no  less  than 

^  "  The  disciples  at  once  formed  themselves  into  a  com- 
munity "  {What  is  Christianity?  ib.). 

2  "  The  band  of  pupils,  .  .  .  men  in  whose  ears  every  word 
of  their  master's  was  still  ringing  "  {ib.,  pp.  155,  182). 

^  Jewish  colonies  were  to  be  found  in  every  city  of  the 
Hellenic  world  at  the  dawn  of  Christianity  {cfr.  Bat.  op.  cit., 
pp.  1-16  ;  Duchesne  :  Christian  Worship,  pp.  1-6.  Harnack  : 
Mission  and  Expansion  of  Christianity,  vol.  i,  Dn.  1-23). 

*  Mk.  vii.  27. 


12  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

Palestinian,  were  a  privileged  race.  They  were 
God's  own  people,  and  as  such  were  entitled  to 
preferential  treatment.  We  are,  therefore,  pre- 
pared to  find  that  the  apostles,  arriving  in  a 
district  or  city,  invariably  began  their  missionary 
work  by  evangelizing  the  Jewish  colony.  Every- 
where throughout  the  Empire  Christianity  made 
its  first  appearance  in  the  synagogues,  and  the 
earliest  converts  at  each  centre  were  without 
exception  "  of  the  circumcision."  ^  It  was  only 
when  the  local  synagogue  had  been,  with  whatever 
success,  evangelized,  that  the  Christian  missionary 
considered  himself  at  liberty  to  address  the  un- 
circumcised.  At  Pisidian  Antioch,  for  example, 
Paul  began  with  the  Jews.  "  And  when  they, 
filled  with  envy,  contradicted  his  teaching,  then 
he  said  boldly :  to  you  it  behoved  us  first  to  speak 
the  word  of  God  ;  but  because  you  reject  it  .  .  . 
behold  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles."  ^  At  Corinth,  too, 
he  began  by  testifying  to  the  Jews ;  but,  they 
gainsaying,  he  said  to  them :  Your  blood  be  upon 
your  own  heads :  I  am  clean  ;  from  henceforth  I 
will  go  unto  the  Gentiles.  ^ 

The  local  church  had  its  beginnings  in  a  Jewish 
schism. — Intimate  as  was  the  original  connection 
in  each  district  between  the  Christian  community 
and  the  synagogue,  they  formed,  from  the  first, 
distinct  and  independent  organizations.     This  is 


^  cjr.  Ac.  xiii.  5.  2  n,  yy  45^  46, 

^  ib.  xviii.  6. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  13 

certain.  The  apostles,  we  have  seen,  inaugurated 
their  mission  at  each  centre  by  preaching  in  the 
synagogue.  In  this  way  a  number  of  the  Jews, 
as  a  rule,  received  '  the  word,'  and  for  some  little 
time  a  casual  onlooker  would  have  seen  in 
Christianity  nothing  more  serious  than  a  sect 
within  the  synagogue. 

The  Church  and  the  Synagogue  independent 
organizations. — It  was,  however,  something  much 
more  serious  as  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  were 
quick  to  realize.  The  new  preachers  proclaimed 
the  passing  of  the  old  dispensation  and  were 
treated  accordingly.  Having  taken  shape  and 
grown  somewhat  within  the  bosom  of  the  synagogue 
the  Christian  community  were  expelled  and  were 
thereafter  recognized  by  all  as  a  new  and  distinct 
organization.  So  it  happened  to  the  apostles  and 
their  disciples  at  Jerusalem :  there  was  a  radical 
division — a  schism — in  the  Jewish  society,  a  section 
of  its  members  abandoning  the  old  flag  for  a 
new.  The  synagogue  looked  upon  Christians  as 
schismatics. 

At  no  time  were  the  Christian  and  the  Jewish 
societies  one.  The  local  church,  it  is  true,  remained 
and  developed,  for  a  little,  within  the  bosom  of  the 
synagogue.  But  from  the  first  moment  of  its 
existence  it  constituted  an  organism  distinct  from 
and  independent  of  its  parent.  Towards  the  rulers 
of  the  synagogue  the  Christian  authorities  assumed 
from  the  outset  a  thoroughly  independent  attitude. 
The  organizations  were  professedly  antagonistic. 


14  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

When  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  at  Jerusalem 
summoned  Peter  and  John  and  "  charged  them 
not  to  speak  nor  teach  in  the  name  of  Jesus,"  * 
the  apostles  ignored  the  charge.  Apprehended 
subsequently  for  disobeying  orders,  they  were 
scourged  and  again  charged  "  to  speak  no  more  in 
the  name  of  Jesus."  ..."  And  the  apostles," 
we  read,  "  went  from  the  presence  of  the  council 
rejoicing,  .  .  .  and  every  day  they  ceased  not, 
in  the  temple  and  from  house  to  house,  to  teach 
and  to  preach  Christ  Jesus."  ^  They  alone,  or 
those  appointed  by  them,  controlled  the  new 
organization. 

We  have  said  that  the  Church  and  the  synagogue 
were  antagonistic  from  the  first.  It  could  scarcely 
have  been  otherwise.  The  apostles  and  their 
emissaries  proclaimed  a  new  covenant  and  the 
passing  of  the  old.  They  preached  an  unexpected 
fulfilment  of  messianic  prophecy  which  involved 
an  extinction  of  Jewish  prerogatives.  This  hard 
fact  was  implied  in  their  earliest  teaching,  however 
they  might  try  to  avoid  hurting  Jewish  sensi- 
bilities. His  enemies  accused  St.  Stephen  of 
blasphemy  against  Moses.  The  charge  was,  of 
course,  false  in  substance  ;  but  from  the  incident 
we  may  infer  that  the  outspoken  deacon  had  been 
at  little  pains  to  gloss  over  the  fact  that  the  Jewish 
covenant  was  dead  or  at  least  moribund.  The 
terms  of  the  charge  are  noteworthy  :    "  This  man," 

I  Ac.  iv.  18.  2  j^_  ^_  40-42. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  15 

they  alleged,  "  ceaseth  not  to  speak  words  against 
the  Holy  Place  and  the  Law ;  for  we  have  heard 
him  say  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  this 
place  and  shall  change  the  traditions  which  Moses 
delivered  unto  us."  ^  It  is  clear  that  the  earliest 
Christian  preachers  proclaimed  that  the  Jewish 
temple  with  all  it  stood  for  had  been,  by  divine 
arrangement  of  course,  supplanted  by  the  Church 
of  Christ. 

The  distinctive  character  of  the  new  society 
is  further  apparent  from  its  doctrines  and 
its  rites.  It  had  a  distinctive  doctrinal  basis. 
"  The  word  "  was  a  new  revelation,  a  treasury  of 
divine  truth  entrusted  by  Christ  to  His  apostles.^ 
The  new  association  had  also  distinctive  rites — 
the  baptismal  rite  of  initiation  and  the  "  break- 
ing of  bread."  Both  were  new  and  peculiar  to 
Christians. ' 

That  the  Church  and  the  synagogue  were  in- 
dependent organizations  was  generally  recognized. 
In  the  matter  of  privileges,  for  example,  a  sharp 
distinction    was    drawn    by    the    civil    authority 


1  Ac.  vi.  13,  14. 

2  1  Tim.  vi.  20. 

^  It  is  of  no  consequence  that  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion 
had  been  baptizing  their  proselytes.  The  Jewish  baptism  was 
not  the  Christian.  Baptism  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  owed  its  origin 
to  Jesus  and  was  peculiar  to  the  new  organization  {cfr.  Bat, 
op.  cit.,  p.  12  ;  Harnack  :  Mission  and  Expansion  of  Christianity, 
vol.  i,  p.  12). 


16  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

between  Christian  and  Jew.  The  synagogue  was 
officially  recognized  as  a  lawful  association  ;  and 
its  members  were  not  only  immune  from  persecu- 
tion but  enjoyed  many  important  privileges.  The 
Church  on  the  other  hand  was  for  centuries 
denied  state  recognition.  She  was  regarded  as 
a  pernicious  organization,  which  was  somehow 
subversive  of  the  established  order  and  a 
menace  to  the  constitution.  Unlike  members  of 
the  synagogue.  Christians  lived  in  a  state  of  utter 
insecurity  as  to  life  and  property  ;  and  when  storm 
after  storm  burst  upon  them  during  the  early 
centuries,  the  Jews,  as  such,  were  never  involved. 
In  the  beginning,  however,  Christianity  and 
Judaism  were  undoubtedly  confounded.  This  was 
to  be  expected.  The  divisions  caused  in  the 
synagogues  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  element, 
were  naturally  regarded  by  pagan  onlookers  as  the 
outcome  of  doctrinal  controversy  among  Jews 
themselves.  "  The  Galileans  "  were  thought  to  be 
a  refractory  sect  within  the  synagoguel — ^nothing 
more.  Thus,  when  the  Jews  at  Corinth  arraigned 
St.  Paul  before  the  civil  tribunal  on  a  charge  of 
apostasy,  the  proconsul  summarily  dismissed  the 
case :  "  Questions  about  the  Law,"  he  said, 
"  Jews  must  decide  for  themselves."  He  would 
not  act  as  judge  in  such  matters.^  We  can  account 
similarly  for  the  interesting  fact  that  disturbances 
which  arose  in  the  Roman  sjrnagogues  in  conse- 

1  Ac.  xviii.  12-17. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  17 

quence  of  the  infiltration  of  the  new  teaching 
resulted  in  the  expulsion  of  all  Jews  from  the  city.^ 
This  was  about  the  year  51.  On  the  other  hand, 
some  thirteen  years  later,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
burning  of  Rome,  we  find  a  clear-cut  distinction 
drawn  by  the  civil  authorities  between  Jews  and 
Christians.  Thenceforward  the  distinction  was 
always  officially  recognized  and  acted  upon.^ 

Let  us  now  hear  the  critics  who  affirm  that  the 
Christian  Church  in  its  early  infancy  was  neither  de 
iure  nor  de  facto  a  society,  still  less  a  society  distinct 
from  and  independent  of  the  synagogue.  They  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Gentiles  were  admitted  to 
the  "  fellowship  of  the  apostles  "  only  when  the 
Christian  development  had  already  reached  an 
advanced  stage.  ^  Until  then,  Jews  alone  were 
deemed  eligible  for  "  initiation,"  and  to  become 
"  brethren  "  members  of  the  synagogue  had  only 
to  do  penance  and  accept  the  gospel.  "  Repent 
and  believe  "  was  the  simple  dictum  of  the  early 
Christian  missionary.  It  had  also  been  the  dictum 
of  Jesus  and  of  the  Precursor.  In  it  we  find  no 
suggestion  of  a  new  organization.  Jesus  came 
merely  to  reform  the  synagogue.  The  establish- 
ment of  the  Church  was  the  result  of  an  after- 
thought on  the  part  of  the  apostles,  when  the  Jews 
as  a  body  had  rejected  the  gospel  and  when  it  was 


1  Ac.  xviii.  2.     cjr.  Sueton:   Vita  Claud.  25. 

2  cJr.  Bat.  op.  cit.,  pp.  17  sqq. 
^  Ac..  5fii, 

B 


18  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

felt  that,  after  all,  Jesus  had  been  deceived  as  to 
the  proximity  of  the  apocalyptic  kingdom. 

Such  is  the  theory.  This  view,  it  will  be  observed, 
deals  not  alone  with  the  historical  church  but  also 
with  Christianity  de  iure.  We  examine  it  here 
under  the  former  aspect  only,  reserving  the 
ecclesiology  of  Jesus  for  a  subsequent  chapter.^ 

The  infant  Church,  it  is  alleged,  was  a  mere 
reform-school  within  the  synagogue.  A  Jew  to 
become  "  a  brother  "  had  only  to  mend  his  ways 
and  accept  the  new  teaching.  ^  Every  student  of 
Sacred  Scripture  knows  how  utterly  inadequate 
and  misleading  is  this  statement  of  the  facts. 
Repentance  and  faith  were  demanded,  indeed,  but 
demanded  merely  as  conditions  for  baptism.  The 
external  rite  of  initiation  alone,  it  was,  which  made 
the  Christian,  as  is  plain  from  the  story  of  Philip 
and  the  eunuch. 

That  Christianity  was  ecclesiastical  in  its  begin- 
nings is  historically  certain.  It  is  also  certain, 
whatever  the  critics  may  say,  that  the  Church  was 
from  its  earliest  infancy  an  organization  quite 
distinct  from  and  independent  of  the  synagogue. 
The  earliest  Christians  it  is  true  were  without 
exception  "  of  the  circumcision,"  and  many,  if  not 
all,  practised  the  religion  of  their  fathers  for  some 
time  after  their  conversion.  Their  leaders  did  so. 
In  addition  it  would  appear  that  antecedently  to 

^  ch.  iii. 

2  "  Everyone  who  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Lord  belonged 
to  the  community  "  (Harnack  :  What  is  Christianity'^  p.  167). 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  15 

the  baptism  of  Cornelius  circumcision  was  deemed 
an  absolute  condition  for  admission  to  the  Christian 
fellowship.  1  All  this  may  be  history,  but  it  is  no 
less  history  that  the  apostolic  Church  was  bom 
independent  of  the  synagogue.  The  sources  re- 
present Christians  as  having  acknowledged  a  new 
flag  from  the  very  outset.  The  Church  had  also, 
as  we  have  seen,  distinctive  rites  and  a  distinctive 
doctrinal  basis. 

The  Church  Universal 

The  two  Dispersions. — Our  findings  up  to  the 
present  may  be  summarized  by  saying  that  history 
represents  the  Church  as  having  appeared  in  the 

^  But  now  arises  a  difficulty.  How,  it  will  be  asked,  could 
the  apostles  have  regarded  circumcision  as  a  necessary  con- 
dition for  baptism  if  they  understood  that  the  new  religion 
was  for  all  men  ?  This  objection  must  be  faced  square l3^  It 
is  perfectly  certain  that  the  immediate  disciples  had  been 
taught  to  regard  the  Church  as  a  world-church.  Jesus,  as  we 
shall  see,  proclaimed  Himself  Saviour,  not  of  a  nation,  but  of 
the  individual,  and  therefore  of  all  individuals.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  seems  equally  certain  that,  until  Peter  was  divinely 
enlightened  to  the  contrary,  the  entire  primitive  church,  in- 
cluding the  apostles,  understood  that  only  the  circumcised 
could  be  initiated.  How  is  the  antinomy  to  be  solved? 
Either,  we  take  it,  the  apostles  considered  themselves  bound 
in  virtue  of  their  commission  to  abstain  Jor  some  time  from 
evangelizing  the  uncircumcised,  or,  they  miderstood  that  all 
men  were  constrained  to  enter  the  Church  by  way  of  the 
synagogue, — that  to  approach  Christ  a  Gentile  should  begin 
by  approaching  Moses. 


20  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

Roman  Empire  in  the  form  of  a  dispersion'^  of 
external  societies,  distinct  from  each  other,  and 
severally  distinct  from  and  independent  of  the 
local  Jewish  communities.  The  apostles  found 
themselves  face  to  face  with  a  dispersion  of 
synagogues.  Alongside  and  over  against  each  ^ 
they  set  up  a  rival  organization ;  so  that, 
with  the  spread  of  the  movement,  every  city 
became  the  birth-place  of  a  new  religious  society. 
Historically,  then,  primitive  Christianity  resembled 
contemporary  Judaism  in  being  realized  in  a  dis- 
persion of  visible  associations.  With  the  spread  of 
Christianity  the  Empire  became  the  home  of  two 
antagonistic  Diasporas. 

The  Jewish  Dispersion  lacked  organic  unity. — 
Jews  of  the  Dispersion  were  bound  together  by 
many  ties.  They  formed  one  nation,  one  brother- 
hood. They  had  community  of  aspirations, 
political  and  religious.  All  looked  forward  with 
eagerness  to  the  coming  of  a  great  Messias  who 
would  universalize  Yahvism  and  make  the  poor 
despised  Israelite  lord  of  the  earth.     The  Jews 

^  cjr.  1  Pet.  i.  1.  XIcTpos  .  .  .  €k\€ktois  7ra/D€7rtS^/iots  Stao-TTopas 
HovTov,  TaXarias.    .   .   . 

2  The  reader  must  not  infer,  however,  that  every  individual 
S3magogue  gave  birth  to  a  distinct  church.  In  a  large  city 
where  there  existed  a  number  of  sjTiagogues  the  Jews  who 
"  fell  away  "  and  embraced  Christianity  were  drafted  together 
into  one  and  the  same  church.  There  was  one  church  {eKKXrja-ia), 
and  only  one,  in  each  city  however  large.  In  this  important 
respect  the  organization  of  primitive  Christianity  contrasted 
with  that  found  in  the  sjTiagogue  and  in  the  pagan  collegia. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  21 

were  adopted  children  of  the  same  Father,  God's 
own  people,  an  elect  race.  They  revered  the  same 
great  mediator  and  lawgiver,  Moses,  and  observed 
the  same  ethical  and  ceremonial  codes. 

The  Holy  City  with  its  sanctuary  was  a  further 
bond  of  union.  Sion  was  the  centre  of  Yahvism. 
There  stood  the  only  sanctuary  on  earth  wherein 
sacrifice  might  be  offered  to  the  God  of  Israel. 
Jews  the  world  over  had  thus  a  common  stake  in 
the  mother-city.  They  contributed  generously 
towards  the  up-keep  of  her  temple  ^  and  gloried  in 
its  splendour,  and  every  Jew  however  remote  his 
domicile  was  expected  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to 
Jerusalem,  at  least  once  in  his  life-time. 

But  the  bond  of  external  authority  was  lacking. 
This  is  noteworthy.  For  Jews  of  the  Dispersion 
Jerusalem  was  a  Mecca  not  a  Rome.  They  formed 
a  number  of  discrete  associations  which  were  each 
self-contained  and  perfectly  autonomous.  They 
were  subject  to  no  central  government.^  They  were 
a  racial  not  an  organic  unit :  a  nation  without  a 
flag. 

The  New  Dispersion  an  Organic  Unit. — -In  the 
earliest  stage  of  the  Christian  development  the 
brethren  were  bound  together  by  the  tie  of  a 
common  nationality.  Only  Jews  were  admitted 
to  fellowship.     With  the  conversion  of  Cornelius 

^  cjr.  Duchesne  :  Christian  Worship,  p.  5.  Harnack  :  Mission 
and  Expansion  of  Christianity,  pp.  14,  15. 

^  cJr.  Duchesne  :  loc-  cit.  ;  Bat.  op.  cit.,  pp.  4,  5. 


22  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

however  circumcision  ceased  to  be  a  condition  for 
baptism.  Thenceforward,  the  doors  of  the  Church 
were  open  to  all  nationalities. 

Members  of  the  new  Dispersion,  like  those  of  the 
old,  constituted  a  visible  fraternity,  a  league  of 
brothers.  Followers  of  Jesus,  wherever  resident, 
were  aJcA^ot/  They  were  adopted  children  of  the 
same  Father,  disciples  of  the  same  Master.  They 
had  a  common  statutory  creed,  a  common  ethical 
code,  a  common  cult. 

But  the  new  Diaspora,  unlike  the  old,  was  an 
organic  unit.  The  same  missionaries,  who  set  up 
local  churches  wherever  they  preached,  subjected 
the  entire  Christian  Dispersion  to  a  central  external 
authority.  Their  extant  letters  speak  of  a  Church 
of  churches  into  which  all  Christians  are  baptized 
"  whether  Jew  or  gentile  whether  bond  or  free."  ^ 

The  Acts  tell  us  that,  when  Stephen  was 
martyred,  there  arose  a  great  persecution 
against  the  Church  (eVt  rrjv  iKKXija-lav)  which  was  in 
Jerusalem.^  We  have  already  remarked  on 
the  important  consequences  of  that  outburst. 
Christian  societies,  founded  by  fugitives  from  the 
mother-church,     came    into     being,    everjrwhere 

^  "  Catholicism  "  is  therefore  not  exclusively  Pauline  as 
modern  critics  tell  us, 

^  The  oneness  of  Christian  baptism  suggests  but  scarcely 
establishes  the  organic  unity  of  the  Church.  The  Jewish 
Dispersion  was  not  a  social  unit  and  yet  its  members  had  a 
common  form  of  initiation — circumcision. 

^  Ac.  viii.  1. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  23 

throughout  the  surrounding  districts.^  These 
societies  were  not  isolated  units.  They  cohered 
in  some  way.  St.  Luke  refers  to  them  in  globo  as 
"  the  Church  {v  eKKXrja-ia)  throughout  ail  Judea 
and  Galilee  and  Samaria."  - 

The  apostles,  who  remamed  in  Jerusalem, ^ 
exercised  jurisdiction  over  the  dispersed  com- 
munities. This  is  now  conceded  by  the  ablest 
critics.*  The  apostles  sent  Peter  and  John  to 
confirm  the  brethren  in  Samaria ;  ^  and  when 
Greeks  received  the  word  at  Antioch  the  mother- 
church  "  sent  Barnabas  to  them."  ^  She  approved 
of  their  evangelization  but  implied  that  the  new 
community  was  subject  to  her.  Finally  Peter 
visited  all  the  churches  in  an  official  capacity,  as 


^  Ac.  vv.  4  sqq. 

2  ib.  ix.  31. 

^  ib.  viii.  1. 

*  cfr.  Weizsacker,  p.  585  ;  Bat.  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

5  Ac.  viii.  14. 

6  ib.  xi.  22  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  those  "  Greeks  " 
at  Antioch  were  the  first  absolute  heathens  to  be  admitted  to  the 
Church .  The  eunuch  baptized  by  Philip  was  at  least  a  proselyte. 
Cornehus  too  may  have  been  a  proselyte  at  least  in  a  wide 
sense  of  the  term.  St.  Luke  refers  to  him  as  having  been  a 
«'  <^o^ov[i€vos  Tov  Oeov  "  (Acts  X.  2). 

Dr.  Lindsay  states  that  '  Peter  and  Jolm  were  sent  to 
Samara  to  inquire  into  the  conversions  among  the  Samaritans,' 
and  that  '  Barnabas  was  sent  down  to  Antioch  on  a  similar 
errand.'  {op.  cit.,  p.  24.)  This  statement  of  the  facts  is  in- 
adequate and  misleading,  as  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  by 
comparing  it  with  St.  Luke's  narrative  which  we  reproduce. 


24  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

St.  Chrysostom  observes  ;^  and  as  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  at  Caesarea  he  authoritatively 
flung  open  the  doors  of  the  Church  to  the  un- 
circumcised.- 

This  admission  of  "  Greeks  "  to  the  Christian 
fellowship  led  to  a  serious  dissension  among  the 
faithful.  When  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  returned 
to  Antioch  at  the  close  of  the  first  of  their 
missionary  journeys:  "  Some  coming  down  from 
Judea  taught  the  brethren  saying :  except  you  be 
circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses  you  cannot 
be  saved."  ^  Baptism,  they  contended,  did  not 
suffice  for  salvation  ;  the  law  of  circumcision  re- 
mained in  force.  This  teaching,  it  should  be  noted, 
struck  at  the  very  foundations  of  Christianity.  If 
admitted,  it  would  lower  the  Church  of  Christ  to 
the  level  of  a  Jewish  sect.*  Realizing  this,  "  Paul 
and  Barnabas  had  no  small  contest  with  them  ;  " 
and  it  would  seem  as  if  the  faithful  took  sides,  some 
supporting  the  apostles,  and  others  declaring  for 
the  Judaisers. 

The  question  could  not  be  settled  at  Antioch. 
The  disputants,  St  Luke  proceeds,^  "  determined 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas  and  certain  others  of  the 


1  Horn.  21  in  Acta  n.  1,  2. 

2  Ac.  X.  34,  35. 
^  ib.  XV.  1  sqq. 

*  Christians  would  differ  from  ordinary  Jews  only  in  acknow- 
ledging Jesus  to  be  the  Clirist. 

5  Harnack,  we  should  note,  maintains  that  what  is  narrated 
in  Acts  XV  took  place  at  a  somewhat  later  date. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  25 

other  side  should  go  up  to  the  apostles  and  elders 
to  Jerusalem  about  this  question."  The  Church 
at  Antioch  recognized  in  the  authorities  at  Jeru- 
salem a  body  empowered  to  pronounce  definitively 
upon  the  question  at  issue.  They  recognized  a 
central  authority  whose  decision  would  be  binding 
upon  the  parties. 

What  was  the  sequel  ?  How  were  "  Paul  and 
Barnabas  and  the  others  "  received  at  Jerusalem  ? 
Did  "  the  apostles  and  elders  "  disclaim  the  stand- 
ing implicitly  attributed  them  by  the  disputants  ? 
On  the  contrary,  convening  a  solemn  council  they 
formulated  and  issued  a  decree  to  bind  not  alone  the 
Christians  at  Antioch  but  the  faithful  generally. 

This  is,  of  course,  denied  by  Congregationalists. 
"  The  appeal  of  the  Church  at  Antioch,"  writes 
Dr.  Dale  ..."  proves  nothing  against  the 
Independency  of  apostolic  churches.  .  .  .  The 
whole  story  apart  from  modern  controversies  is 
perfectly  simple.  .  .  .  The  Judaisers  appear  to 
have  alleged  the  authority  of  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem  for  their  opinions  ;  ^  and  they  were  able 
to  maintain  with  perfect  truth  that,  whatever  Paul 
and  Barnabas  might  teach,  the  Christians  at 
Jerusalem  .  .  .  observed  the  laws  of  Moses.  .  .  . 
If  there  was  real  conflict  between  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Christians  at 
Jerusalem  on  the  other,  it  would  seem  the  safer 
course  for  the  recent  converts  from  heathenism  at 

1  Ac.  XV.  24    25. 


26  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

Antioch  to  adhere  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
older  and  more  powerful  church.    .    .    ." 

"  The  way  in  which  it  was  resolved  to  settle 
the  question,"  he  proceeds,  "  was  simple  and 
obvious.  The  Judaisers  maintained  that  the 
apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem  were  on  their  side. 
A  deputation  was  sent  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem 
to  learn  if  this  was  a  fact.  It  was  the  apostles  and 
elders  and  the  whole  church^  at  Jerusalem  that  con- 
sidered the  question  and  answered  it.  .  .  Advan- 
tage was  taken  of  the  discussion  to  draw  up  certain 
articles  of  peace  .  .  .  to  state  the  terms  on  which 
Jewish  Christians  could  live  peaceably  with  Christian 
converts  from  heathenism  .  .  .  James  had  recom- 
mended that  the  Christian  gentiles  should  be  asked 
to  abstain  from  things  sacrificed  to  idols.    .    .    ."  ^ 

Such  is  "  the  simple  story."  We  have  to  inquire 
how  far  it  squares  with  St.  Luke's  narrative  and 
with  the  text  of  the  decree :  To  begin  with,  Dr. 
Dale  is  quite  mistaken  as  to  the  personnel  of  the 
"  council."  The  facts  are  against  him.  St.  Luke 
relates  that  the  delegates  from  Antioch  ivere  re- 
ceived by  the  church  and  by  the  apostles  and  elders. 
Later  the  apostles  and  elders  assembled  to  discuss 
the  question  at  issue.  The  discussion  concluded, 
the  apostles  and  elders  with  the  whole  church  selected 
men  to  act  as  bearers  of  the  decree  to  the  church 


1  Ac.  V.  22. 

^  op.  cii.,  pp.  84  sqq.    I  have  tried  to  give  the  substance 
of  Dr.  Dale's  criticism.    The  italics  are  my  own. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  27 

at  Antioch.  Finally,  the  decree  was  formulated 
and  issued  in  the  name  of  the  apostles  and  elders.^ 
St.  Luke  makes  it  clear,  therefore,  that,  whereas 
the  church  received  the  strangers  and  took  part  in 
the  election  of  the  delegates  to  Antioch,  it  was  the 
apostles  and  elders  alone,  who  formed  the  council 
and  were  responsible  for  the  decree.  Dr.  Dale 
speaks  of  it  as  a  decree  emanating  *'  from  the 
apostles  and  the  elders  and  the  whole  church  ;  " 
St.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  refers  to  it  as 
"  the  decrees  of  the  apostles  and  the  elders  "  ^ 
simply. 

The  text  of  the  decree  is  as  follows :  "  The 
apostles  and  elders  brethren^  to  the  brethren  of  the 
gentiles  that  are  at  Antioch  and  in  Syria  and 
Cilicia,  greeting.  Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard 
that  some  going  out  from  us  have  troubled  you 
with  words:  subverting  your  souls,  to  whom  we 
gave  no  commandment :  It  hath  seemed  good  to 
us,  being  assembled  together,  to  choose  out  men, 
and  to  send  them  unto  you  with  our  well-beloved 
Barnabas  and  Paul,  men  that  have  given  their 
lives  for  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     We 


^  There  are  two  readings  :  one  :  "  The  apostles  and  elders 
and  brethren  to  the  brethren  .  .  ."  the  other :  "  The 
apostles  and  elders  brethren  to  the  brethi-en.  ..."  The 
latter  is  almost  certainly  the  true  reading.  Dr.  Dale  admits 
that  "  it  is  supported  by  high  MS.  authority  "  {op.  cit.,  p.  87  n). 

-  Ta  Soyixara  Ta  K€Kpifi€va  vtto  twv  drrocrT.  Kai  tcov  Trpea-j^. 
Ac.  xvi.  4  ;  cfr.  xv.  41. 

*  V.  supra,  n.  1. 


28  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

have  therefore  sent  Judas  and  Silas,  who  themselves 
also  will  by  word  of  mouth  tell  you  the  same  things. 
For  it  hath  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to 
us  to  lay  no  further  burden  ^  upon  you  than  these 
necessary  things :  That  you  abstain  from  things 
sacrificed  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things 
strangled  and  from  fornication  ;  from  which  things 
keeping  yourselves,  you  shall  do  well.  Fare  ye 
weU."  2 

The  tone  of  the  communication  is  quite  authori- 
tative. The  apostles  and  elders  deal  with  the 
dissension  effectively.  They  are  not  satisfied  with 
a  mere  expression  of  opinion,  nor  even  with  a 
formal  statement  of  their  own  personal  views  upon 
the  question  at  issue.  No;  the  decree  of  "the 
apostles  and  elders  "  imposes  obligations.  "  It  hath 
seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us  to  lay 
no  further  burden  upon  you  than  .  .  .  that  you 
abstain  from  things  sacrificed  to  idols.  .  .  ."  Dr. 
Dale  speaks  of  "  safer  courses,''  of  gentile  Christians 
being  "  asked  "  to  abstain  from  certain  things,  of 
"  articles  of  peace  "  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  of  a 
"  statement  of  the  terms  "  upon  which  Jew  could 
associate  with  Gentile.  Over  against  all  this 
language  of  "  Independency  "  stands  the  original 
text  of  the  decree,  which  speaks  of  commands,  and 
of  an  imposition  of  burdens. 

The  document  was  formally  addressed  only  to 

^  Gr.  "  fitjSev  TrXeov  iTriTidecrdai  vfiiv  ygapo?." 
2  Ac.  XV.  23-29. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  29 

the  gentile  Christians  at  Antioch  and  to  those  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia.  In  reality  however  the  decree 
was  intended  as  a  general  law,  and  was  everywhere 
received  as  such.^  Copies  were  distributed  in  all 
the  churches.  2 

The  apostles  acted  as  authoritative  pastors  of 
the  entire  Church  not  only  collectively  but  in- 
dividualty.  The  Gospel  doctrinal  and  disciplinary 
is  everywhere  represented  as  being  a  deposit,^  a 
definite  consignment  of  truth,  entrusted  to  the 
Twelve  to  be  preserved  intact  for  the  enlightenment 
of  men.*  Doctrines  proposed  by  the  apostles  as 
contained  in  the  deposit  must  be  accepted  by  all. 

As  rulers,  the  apostles  were  individually  en- 
dowed with  universal  jurisdiction.  Each,  it  is 
true,  had  a  special  care  for  his  own  children  in 
Christ,  and  was  unwilling,  as  a  rule,  to  interfere 
with  churches  of  another's  founding.  This  general 
rule,  however,  admitted  of  exceptions.  Paul  con- 
cerned himself  with  the  Romans,  evangelized  by 
Peter,  and  with  the  Colossians,  evangelized  by 
Epaphras.  Peter's  first  epistle  is  addressed  to 
"  the  strangers  dispersed  through  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bithynia."  The  tone  of  the 
apostolic  letters  like  that  of  "  the  decree  of  the 
apostles  and  elders "  is  unmistakeably  authori- 
tative.^ 


1  cfr.  Ac.  xxi.  25.  ^  i  xim.  vi.  20. 

2  ib.  xvi.  4.  *  2  Tim.  ii.  2  ;  iii.    15. 

5  cjr.  1  Cor.  vii.   12  sqq.  :  iv.  21  ;  xi.   12  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  9  ; 
Gal.  i.  1,  etc. 


30  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

The  democratic  phraseology  imported  into  the 
Pauline  letters  by  Congregational  and  Presbyterian 
apologists  is  not  a  little  amusing.  The  apostle 
must  not  command.  No  ;  he  may  "  indicate," 
"  suggest,"  "  recommend,"  "  ask,"  "  exhort," — 
even  "  urge  ;  "  but  launch  a  flat — never. 

To  secure  unity  and  integrity  of  faith  in  the 
Church  during  the  apostolic  age,  a  central  magis- 
terium  was  not  absolutely  necessary.  The  prophetic 
ministry  was  everywhere  operative.^  In  addition 
the  apostles,  as  such,  were  individually  infallible. ^ 
Paul  preached  to  the  gentiles  for  fourteen  years 
before  comparing  his  "  Gospel "  with  that  of  the 
other  apostles.  When  at  length  he  "  conferred 
with  them  "  ^  his  purpose  was  not  to  satisfy  himself 
as  to  the  soundness  of  his  "  Gospel," — ^he  never 
doubted  it, — but  rather  to  reassure  those  who, 
influenced  by  the  Judaisers,  ■v^■ere  disposed  to 
question  the  legitimacy  of  his  teaching  and  the 
authenticity  of  his  apostolate. 

Parties  in  the  Apostolic  Church 

The  Judaisers. — The  earliest  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity were  without  exception  Jews.     It  would 

^  Prof.  Sohm  and  others  contend  that  the  teaching  ministry 
in  the  early  church  was  exclusively  charismatic.  This  view  is 
quite  unhistorical.  The  apostolic  office  as  such  was  primarily 
a  teaching  office. 

^  "  Though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  unto  you  a 
gospel  other  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you  let 
him  be  anathema  "  (Gal.  i.  8). 

3  lb.  ii.  12. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  31 

even  seem  as  if  the  infant  Church  understood  for 
some  time  that  her  doors  were  open  only  to  the 
circumcised.  The  vision  vouchsafed  to  St.  Peter 
on  the  occasion  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and 
the  "  Gospel "  of  St.  Paul  were  required  to  en- 
lighten men  as  to  the  Church's  true  character  and 
to  assure  them  that  the  ceremonial  law  had  had 
its  day. 

Not  all  Jewish  Christians,  however,  became  at 
once  reconciled  to  fellowship  with  the  uncircum- 
cised.  Many  persisted  in  teaching  that  the  Mosaic 
law  remained  in  force  ;  that  to  be  saved  through 
Christ  Jesus,  it  was  necessary  to  be  circumcised. 
These  were  the  Judaisers.  They  were  the  earliest 
Christian  heretics. 

In  the  beginning  they  preached  the  absolute 
necessity  of  circumcision,  and  we  already  know 
that  a  dissension  caused  by  their  teaching  in  the 
Church  at  Antioch  led  to  the  summoning  of  the 
"  council "  of  Jerusalem.  While  forcing  the 
Judaisers  to  modify  their  teaching  in  regard  to 
gentile  converts  "  the  apostles  and  elders,"  it 
should  be  observed,  left  them  free  to  develop  their 
doctrines  in  another  direction.  Gentile  converts, 
it  was  decreed,  were  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as 
bound  by  the  law  of  Moses  except  in  a  few  minor 
matters.  This  could  be  understood  as  implying 
that  the  law  in  question  remained  in  full  force  for 
"  those  of  the  circumcision."  The  Judaisers  were 
thus  ostensibly  in  a  position  to  argue  that  the 
Jewish  Christian  was  nearer  to  God,  was  possessed 


32  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

of  a  fuller  measure  of  righteousness,  than  was  his 
uncircumcised  brother.  Hence  to  be  fully  saved 
through  Christ  circumcision  was  still  absolutely 
essential  even  for  gentiles.  Baptism  without  cir- 
cumcision was  a  mere  step  towards  justification. 

Paul  spent  himself  in  combating  this  teaching. 
His  figure  looms  large  in  the  history  of  the  primitive 
Church  as  the  arch-antagonist  of  the  Judaisers. 
"  If  you  be  circumcised  "  he  exclaimed  "  Christ 
shall  profit  you  nothing."  ^  It  is  noteworthy  that 
the  apostles  while  agreed  as  to  the  soundness  of 
the  Pauline  "  Gospel "  ^  appear  to  have  differed 
widely  as  to  the  proper  policy  to  be  adopted  in 
dealing  with  the  Judaisers.  Paul's  own  policy  was 
characteristic  of  the  man.  It  was  openly  belli- 
gerent. Exasperated  by  their  teaching  and  by 
their  conduct  ^ — ^they  dogged  his  footsteps  wherever 
he  preached — he  denounced  them  as  "  false 
brethren  "  ^  and  availed  himself  of  every  oppor- 
tunity to  crush  them.  Between  Paul  and  the 
Judaisers  it  was  war  a  Voutrance. 

Peter,  on  the  contrary,  tried  to  be  conciliatory. 
Regarding  those  misguided  zealots  as  loyal,  if 
blinded,  children  of  Abraham,  he  endeavoured  to 
win  them  to  Christ  by  considerate  treatment.     If 


1  Gal.  V.  2. 

2  "  That  Peter  ultimately  associated  himself  with  Paul's 
principles  we  know  for  certain "  (Harnack  :  What  is 
Christianity?  p.  182). 

^  cfr.  Harnack  :  Mission,  vol.  i,  p.  48. 
4  Gal.  ii.  4. 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  33 

Paul  circumcised  Timothy  to  conciliate  unbaptized 
Jews,  if  he  became  t,11  things  to  all  men  that  he 
might  win  all  to  Christ,  Peter  would  become  a  Jew 
to  the  Judaisers  for  the  same  great  end.  He  would 
try  to  effect  by  kindness  what  Paul  had  failed  to 
effect  by  denunciation.  Hence  we  find  that  at 
Antioch,  "  Cephas  did  eat  with  the  gentiles  "  until 
"  some  came  from  James,"  when  he  withdrew  and 
separated  himself  fearing  to  give  offence  "  to  those 
who  were  of  the  circumcision."  ^  For  his  action 
on  this  occasion  he  was  openly  admonished  by 
Paul  who  realized  that,  in  the  circumstances, 
Peter's  withdrawal  was  calculated  to  scandalize 
the  uncircumcised.  These  were  liable  to  infer  from 
the  incident  that  they,  too,  were  bound  to  conform 
to  the  Jewish  way  of  living.  Paul,  therefore,  tells 
the  Galatians  that,  on  that  occasion,  he  "  with- 
stood Cephas  to  the  face."  ^  The  episode  was  not 
forgotten  by  the  Judaisers,  who  cleverly  took 
advantage  of  it  and  of  Peter's  general  policy  of 
conciliation,  to  proclaim  him  their  leader  and 
champion  as  against  the  renegade  from  Tarsus. 
They  styled  themselves  Cephasites. 

They  seem  to  have  had  their  emissaries  at  work 
in  every  Pauline  church.^  Openly  rejecting  the 
"  Gospel  "  of  Paul  they  set  themselves  to  destroy 

i  Gal.  ii.  11-12. 

2  ib.  V.  11. 

^  We  have  evidence  that  they  were  to  be  found  not  only  in 
the  mother-church  but  also  in  Antioch,  Corinth,  Galatia  and 
Rome. 

O 


34  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

his  influence  and  to  undermine  his  authority 
with  his  own  "  children  in  Christ."  When  we  re- 
collect that  the  nucleus  of  each  church  was  com- 
posed of  converted  Jews  and  proselytes,  it  does  not 
surprise  us  to  find  that  the  teaching  of  the  Judaisers 
found  a  ready  audience  everywhere.  The  Acts  and 
the  Pauline  letters  would  lead  one  to  infer  that  in 
every  church  founded  by  the  "  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  "  a  Judaising  sect  sprang  up  opposed  to 
his  teaching  and  schismatical  in  relation  to  the 
local  organization  established  by  him.^ 

The  Gnostics. — The  foundation  of  Gnosticism  is 
thought  by  many  to  have  been  already  laid  during 
the  life-time  of  the  apostles.  ^  This  was  to  be 
expected.  The  educated  classes  of  that  age  would 
naturally  have  been  disposed  to  see  in  Christianity 
nothing  more  than  a  new  system  of  philosophy — a 
new  "  wisdom  ;  "  ^  and  many  among  the  Greeks 
embraced  it  as  such  conveniently  ignoring  its 
practical  or  moral  precepts.* 

1  cjr.  Con.  and  H.  op.  cit.,  p.  349. 

^  cfr.  1  Cor.  iii.  1,  which  recalls  the  commonplace  Gnostic 
distinction  of  x^vxikoC  and  TrvevfiariKoi ;  also  viii.  1,  where 
Paul  speaks  of  "a  knowledge  (yvoJo-ts)  that  pufFeth  up." 
cfr.  ib.  i.  22-28  ;  ii.  6-7  ;  1  Tim.  i.  3-10  ;  iv.  2,  3,  7  ;  vi.  20, 
2  Tim.  ii.  18,  16,  23  ;  iv.  3,  4  ;  Col.  ii.  8,  18. 

3  a-o4>ia,  yi'wo-is.  cfr.  Con.  and  H.,  ch.  xiii  ;  Tixeront : 
Hist,  of  Dogmas,  vol.  i,  p.  149. 

*  Origen  remarks  that  "  when  Christianity  was  embraced  by 
many  among  the  Greeks  who  were  devoted  to  Hterary  pursuits 
{(f)iXoX6yo)v)  there  necessarily  originated  heresies,  not  at  all 
however  as  the  result  of  faction  or  strife,  but  through  the 
earnest  desire  of  educated  minds  to  become  acquainted  with 
the  doctrines  of  Christianity"  {contra  Cels.  bk.  iii.  12). 


THE  NEW  DISPERSION  35 

In  the  church  at  Corinth  we  find  distinct  traces 
of  Gnostic  tendencies  during  the  life-time  of  its 
founder.  The  Christian  system,  as  unfolded  to 
the  natives  of  that  city  by  Paul  himself,  was 
indeed,  so  simple  and  so  practical  as  to  afford  little 
scope  for  philosophizing.  But  Paul  was  followed 
by  a  teacher  who  presented  his  doctrines  in  a 
different  fashion.  This  was  the  Alexandrian  Jew 
Apollos.  A  gifted  orator  and  a  philosopher,  his 
learned  exposition  of  the  new  system  contrasted 
with  the  unlearned  style  of  his  predecessor,  and 
seems  to  have  captivated  "  the  wisdom-seekers." 
Failing  to  realize  that  Christian  teachers,  whatever 
their  individual  merits,  are  ministers  of  the  same 
"  word,"  the  faithful  at  Corinth  became  divided, 
some  holding  fast  to  the  simple  formulae  given  them 
by  their  founder,  others  proclaiming  themselves 
followers  of  Apollos.  Among  the  latter  would  have 
been  found  those  free-thinking  brethren  who 
embraced  Christianity  as  "  a  wisdom  "  and  con- 
sidered themselves  at  liberty  to  criticize  and  explain 
away  some  of  its  fundamental  tenets.  Thus  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  seems  to  have  been 
denied,^  while  many,  enslaved  by  their  passions, 
were  not  slow  to  find  in  Antinomianism  a  justifica- 
tion for  vice.  Such  was  their  interpretation — or 
rather  perversion — of  Paul's  central  doctrine,  that 
the  reign  of  Law  had  been  supplanted  by  a  reign 
of  Grace.      Antinomianism  and  a  denial  of   the 

*  cjr.  I  Cor,  XV.  12  ;  Dale,  op.  cit.,  p.  70. 


36  THE  NEW  DISPERSION 

resurrection  were  characteristic  tenets  of  the  later 
Gnostics.^ 

^  Lutterbeck  discovers  in  the  Corinthian  party-teaching  a 
strange  amalgam.  Ostensibly  conscientious  Jews  and  up- 
holders of  the  doctrines  of  the  original  apostles  as  against 
Paul,  the  mischief-makers  at  Corinth,  he  holds,  were  at  heart 
Gnostics  who  plumed  themselves  on  their  <ro(/)ia  or  yi'wcri?, 
while  introducing  into  their  system  an  element  of  the  '  un- 
canny.' Their  teaching  was  a  strange  admixture  of  magical 
doctrines  with  Alexandrian  religion-philosophy.  For  them 
Christ  was  an  seon.  They  taught  that  any  one  who  has  once 
acquired  the  true  yvokris  can  sin  no  more.  Fornication^ 
prostitution,  the  eating  of  sacrificial  meats, — even  participation 
in  heathen  sacrifices,  were  in  themselves  indifferent.  On  the 
other  hand  they  taught  that  "  the  flesh  "  was  essentially  evil. 
Hence  they  condemned  marriage  and  denied  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead :  {cfr.  Neufestamentliche  Lehrbegriffe,  ii.  45.  ff.). 
Lutterbeck 's  curious  theory  is  shown  by  Rohr  to  be  both  in- 
coherent and  unhistorical  (Rohr :  "  Paulus  und  die  Gemeinde 
von  Korinth  auf  Grund  der  beiden  Korintherbriefe  "  :  Biblische 
Studien,  Bd.  iv,  h.  4,  s.  134).  {cfr.  Harnack  :  Mission,  vol.  i, 
c.  3). 


CHAPTER  II 
ECCLESIOLOGY    OF    ST.   PAUL 

Let  us  now  open  the  Pauline  letters.  Their  author 
is,  with  one  exception,  the  greatest  personality  in 
the  history  of  the  primitive  Church.  By  birth  a 
Jew,  by  education  a  Pharisee,  he  was  the  first  and 
greatest  of  Christian  theologians.  Paul  of  Tarsus, 
was  the  founder  of  theological  science.  A  clear 
virile  thinker,  highly  educated,  and  deeply  religious, 
his  intellect  acted  as  a  powerful  medium  through 
which  the  teaching  of  Jesus  passed  while  the 
Church  was  still  m  its  mfancy.  Doctrinal  develop- 
ment proper  had  its  beginnings  in  his  preaching. 
Many  truths  proposed  in  embryonic  form  or  merely 
suggested  by  his  Master,  were  explained,  developed, 
and  illustrated  by  him.  Indeed  so  powerfully  was 
later  Christian  thought  influenced  by  his  teaching 
that  some  critics  accuse  him  of  having  corrupted 
Christianity,  while  others  extol  him  as  its  real 
founder.  In  Paul's  gospel,  we  are  told,  there  is 
much  of  Paul  and  little  of  Jesus. 

At  present  we  are  concerned  only  with  the  great 
apostle's  ecclesiology.  The  soundness  or  legitimacy 
of  his  '  Gospel '  will  come  up  for  discussion  at  the 
close  of  our  next  chapter  when  we  shall  have 
examined  the  personal  teaching  of  his  Master. 

37  D 


38  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 


The  Epistle  "  to  the  Ephesians  " 

We  begin  with  the  so-called  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  The  title  of  the  letter  is  somewhat 
misleading.  Evidence  of  the  weightiest  character, 
internal  and  external,  goes  to  show  that  the  epistle 
was  not  originally  addressed  to  the  Church  at 
Ephesus.  It  was  probably  an  encyclical  or 
"  circular  "  intended  not  for  any  particular  com- 
munity, but  for  the  gentile  churches  of  Asia,  or 
perhaps  for  gentile  churches  generally.  The 
present  title  was  inserted  by  a  later  hand.  The 
date  of  composition  is  61  A.D.^ 

The  argument  of  the  letter  may  be  summed  up 
in  a  few  words  :  To  Paul,  and  to  the  other  apostles 
and  prophets,  God  has  been  pleased  to  reveal,  for  the 
first  time  in  history,  the  true  character  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  This  revelation  the  inspired  writer  sets 
forth  ex  professo.^  Having  done  so  he  employs  it 
as  an  argumentative  basis  for  a  few  general 
exhortations.^ 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  encyclical  is,  for 
us,  of  prime  importance.  It  is  a  formal  exposition 
of  the  matter  in  hand  by  a  divinely  enlightened 
teacher.  It  is  important,  too,  by  reason  of  its 
undoubted  influence  on  many  later  documents,  in- 

1  Approximately.  Paul  was  then  a  prisoner  at  Rome.  The 
encyclical  was  dictated  to  a  scribe  by  its  intrepid  author  while 
chained  to  a  Roman  soldier. 

-  cc.  i-iii.  ^  cc.  iv-vi. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  39 

eluding  probably  the  letters  of  St.  Peter  and  the 
fourth  gospel. 

The  opening  chapter  represents  Christ  as  having 
been  constituted  by  the  Father,  Lord  of  Creation 
and  Head  of  the  Universal  Church :  "  He  hath 
subjected  all  things  under  His  feet,  and  hath  made 
Him  head  over  all  the  Church  which  is  His 
body  and  the  fulness  of  Him  Who  is  filled  all  in 
all."  ^  The  Greek  here  translates :  "He  put 
all  things  in  subjection  under  His  feet,  and  gave 
Him  as  supreme  head  {KecfiaXv^  v-n-ep  iravra)  to  the 
Church  which  is  His  body,  the  fulness  (to  irXripwf/.a) 
of  Him  Who  is  being  completely  -  filled  in  all 
ways."  ^  The  word  TrX-npcofia  seems  to  mean,  that 
which  fills  something,  either  totally  or  partially  by 
way  of  complement.  A  carriage  with  ten  seats  is 
filled  by  ten  passengers  or,  when  nine  have  been 
already  seated,  by  one.  Its  irX^pwiua, — what  fills 
it — is  the  tenth  passenger,  or  all  ten. 

In  Christ  are  found  the  divine  nature  and 
attributes, — the  TrXripK/na  of  the  Godhead,*  and  yet 
He  is  not  thereby  filled  in  all  respects  {to,  iravTa). 
His  own  proper  irXrjpwij.a — what  completely  fills 
Him — is  the   Church,   His  hody.^     Without   the 

1  Eph.  i.  22,  23. 

^  Gr.  Ta  TravTtt  ("  as  to  all  things  ")  ace.  of  respect. 

^    Gr.    TOV  TO.  TTCtVTa  CV   TTaCTLV   TrXrjpOVfXiVOV. 

4  Col.  i.  19  ;  ii.  9. 

^  As  God  Christ  was  of  course  entitatively  full  from  the 
beginning  :  His  increase  with  the  growth  of  His  Mystical  body 
is  a  mere  increase  as  to  term. 


40  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

Church,  He  would  be,  so  to  speak,  a  head  without  its 
proper  body.  The  Church  completes  Christ.  It  is 
the  body  of  which  He  is  the  head.  He  grows, 
advances  towards  completion,  as  the  Church  His 
body  increases  in  grace  and  membership.  Note 
the  present  participle — rov  TrX-npovjuivov — ^"  who  is 
being  filled.''  Christ  will  have  completed  His 
development,  will  have  received  His  TrX'^pw/na^  only 
when  the  Church,  His  body,  has  grown  to  fulness. 
True,  the  ideal  Church  will  never  be  fully  realized, 
nevertheless,  it  is  only  its  complete  realization 
which  can  secure  to  Christ  His  full  -rrXrjpwfxa.  The 
nature  of  the  Church  and  the  manner  of  its  realiza- 
tion have  yet  to  be  explained.* 

Christians  antecedently  to  their  call  to  the  faith 
were  dead  through  sin.  Finding  us  in  this  state 
God  in  His  mercy  infused  life  into  us,  by  making 
us  severally  living  members  of  Christ :  "  And  when 
you  were  dead  in  your  offences  and  sins,  wherein 
in  time  past  you  walked  according  to  the  prince  of 
the  power  of  this  air,  of  the  spirit  that  now  worketh 
in  the  children  of  unbelief,  amongst  whom  we  also 
all  conversed  m  time  past  in  the  desires  of  our 
flesh  .  -  .  God  .  .  .  for  His  exceeding  charity, 
.  .  .  even  when  we  were  dead  in  sin,  hath  quickened 
us  together  in  Christ'''  -  Christianity  makes  us 
living  members  of  Christ's  living  body. 

The  new  religion  embraces  all  men.     The  Mall 

1  cfr.  Hitchcock  :  Epk,  pp.  127  sqq 

2  Eph.  ii.  1-5. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  41 

dividing  Israel  from  the  nations  has  been  razed. 
Jew  and  gentile  become  one  new  ^  man  in  union 
with  Christ  Who  has  reconciled  both  to  God  in  one 
hody.^  "  Those  of  the  uncirciimcision  "  are  re- 
minded, that  formerly  they  were  excluded  from 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel.^  In  Christ  all  men, 
irrespective  of  nationality,  become  citizens  of  one 
and  the  same  commonwealth  (fru/xTroAtVai).*  Full 
of  his  subject,  the  imaginative  Paul  here  employs 
a  new  metaphor.  Already  he  has  spoken  of 
Christians  as  being  members  of  one  body.  Now 
they  are  citizens  of  the  same  iroXiTeia.  In  the 
concluding  verses  of  the  chapter  he  compares  them 
to  members  of  one  household,^  and  to  stones  built 
together  into  one  edifice.*^ 

The  same  train  of  thought  runs  through  the 
succeeding  chapter.  To  Paul  a  mystery  has  been 
unfolded.''  The  gentiles  are  to  share  in  the  New 
Dispensation.  The  divine  purpose  in  their  regard 
was  not  made  clear  to  the  sons  of  men  in  other 
generations  ;  but  now,  all  has  become  manifest. 
To  the  Apostle  of  the  gentiles  it  has  been  divinely 
revealed  that  the  uncircumcised  are  to  be  admitted 
to  citizenship  in  the  new  commonwealth.  In  Christ 
Jesus,  they  will  share  the  promise.  They  will  fully 
participate  in  the  new  Dispensation.     "  By  revela- 

1  KaLvos  avdpioTTo?  (iv.  24),  cfr.  Col.  iii.  10  sqq.;  2  Cor.  v.  17 
(Kttivr)  KTtcrts). 

2  Eph.  ii.  15,  16. 

^  dTr7}XXoTpLU)[XivoL  ttJs  TToXiTela^  Tov'la-pa-qX  (Eph.  ii.  12). 
*  ib.  V.  19.  5  ib.  6  ib.  v.  20.  '  lb.  iii.  3  sqq. 


42  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

tion  the  mystery  has  been  made  known  to  me 
.  .  .  which  in  other  generations  was  not  known 
to  the  sons  of  men  .  .  .  that  the  gentiles  should 
be  fellow-heirs,  and  of  the  same  body,  and  copart- 
ners of  His  promise  in  Christ  Jesus."  ^  The  new 
TToXiTeia  will  embrace,  not  Jews  alone,  nor  gentiles 
alone,  but  all  men.  Together  they  will  constitute 
one  edifice,  one  household  of  God,  one  body.  The 
Church  is  one  and  catholic. 

If  Christians  are  members  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
they  should  live  in  a  manner  befitting  their 
dignity.  They  should  walk  "  worthy  of  their 
calling."  2  The  faithful  should  be  humble,  mild, 
patient,  bearing  M  ith  one  another  in  love  ;  "  careful 
to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace."  ^ 

The  unity  of  the  Church  is  sevenfold.  Christians 
form  together  one  body,  quickened  by  one  and  the 
same  Holy  Spirit.  They  have  a  common  hope, 
salvation  through  Christ  Jesus,  their  common  Lord 
and  Master.  They  believe  the  same  truths  and 
have  the  same  rite  of  initiation.  Finalty,  all 
worship  the  same  God :  "  One  body  and  one 
spirit :  as  you  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your 
calling ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  of  all,  over  all,  through  all,  in 
aU."  ' 

The  unity  of  the  Church,  though  manifold,  is  a 

1  Eph.  iii.  3-6.  ^  ^f,  yy  2,  3. 

^  ib.  iv.  1.  ^  ib.  iv.  4-6. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  43 

unity  amid  diversity.  The  living  body  is  informed 
by  a  vital  principle,  in  virtue  of  which  its  members, 
however  varying  as  to  endowments  and  capabilities, 
cooperate  in  harmony  for  the  good  of  the  whole. 
So  with  the  Church.  She  too  is  an  organism — a 
living  body  of  which  every  Christian  is  a  member. 
Among  members  of  Christ's  mystical  body,  as  of 
all  bodies,  there  exists  a  great  diversity  of  endow- 
ments. Not  all  are  apostles,  nor  all  prophets,  nor 
all  evangelists  ;  as  bodily  members  are  not  all 
hands,  nor  all  feet,  nor  all  eyes.  Each  has  its 
proper  function,  assigned  it  for  one  purpose  only, 
the  development  and  well-being  of  its  fellow- 
members  and  of  the  whole.  To  recur  to  a  metaphor 
employed  in  a  preceding  chapter,  the  individual 
Christian,  whatever  his  office  or  standing  in  the 
Church,  should  act  so  as  to  perfect  his  fellow- 
Christians  and  thus  complete  Christ  by  developing 
and  perfecting  His  body :  "  And  He  gave  some 
to  be  apostles  and  some  prophets,  and  other  some 
evangelists,  and  other  some  pastors  and  teachers  ^ 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints  .  .  .  unto  the 
building  of  the  body  of  Christ  .  .  .  unto  the 
(full)  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness 
{'7r\t]p(oiuLaTog)  of  Christ."  ^  The  Church  Universal 
is  a  visible  organic  unit.  The  ministry  in  question 
is  external. 
To  become  Christians — ^to  be  saved — ^we  must 

^  Gr.  .  .  Tovs  Se  TTOifikvas  kol  StSaa-KaXo^rs — one  class. 

2  Eph.  iv.  11-13. 


44  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

accept  certain  truths  revealed  by  Jesus.  The 
Church  is  a  kingdom  of  truth.  The  faithful  should, 
therefore,  aim  at  perfecting  each  other  primarily 
in  respect  to  faith.  They  should  labour  to  safeguard 
the  purity  and  integritj^  of  the  Christian  deposit, 
and  thus  secure  stability  and  uniformity  of  belief 
in  the  Church  Catholic.  Members,  each  in  his 
proper  capacity,  should  cooperate  to  secure  this 
great  end  :  ' '  until  ^ve  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of 
the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of 
God  .  .  .  that  'we  may  be  no  longer  children 
tossed  to  and  fro  and  carried  about  by  every  wind 
of  doctrine."  ^  A  general  well-ordered  cooperation 
of  this  kind,  founded  in  charity,  will  result  in  a 
grand  all-round  development  of  the  one  living 
body  of  which  all  are  members  ;  "  that,  doing  the 
truth,  in  charity  \Ye  may  in  all  things  grow  up  in 
Him  Who  is  the  Head,  Christ ;  from  Whom  the 
whole  body  bemg  compacted  and  fitly  joined 
together  by  what  every  joint  supplieth  according 
to  the  operation  in  the  measure  of  every  part 
maketh  increase  of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of 
itself  in  charity."  - 

We  are  here  reminded,  incidentally,  that  the 
Church  can  grow  only  in  proportion  as  Christ's 
own  life  permeates  her  in  richer,  fuller  measure. 
Members  of  His  body  derive  from  Him  alone  the 
life  of  grace,  by  which  they  groA\'  in  perfection  unto 
Him.     If  member  perfects  member,  it  is  only  by 

1  Eph.  13,  14.  2  i^   15^  16 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  45 

enabling  it  to  drink  more  deeply  of  the  fountain- 
head  of  all  grace  and  perfection — our  crucified 
Redeemer.^ 

The  Other  Pauline  Letters 

The  doctrine  just  summarized  is  fundamental  in 
the  theology  of  St.  Paul.  His  letters  are  full  of  it. 
In  his  first  (extant)  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  dis- 
cussing the  various  "  gifts "  and  ecclesiastical 
offices,  he  explams  that,  despite  diversity  of 
character  and  effect,  all  x^P^^f^^"^^  proceed  from 
the  same  Holy  Spirit  and  are  bestowed  for  one  and 
the  same  general  purpose,  to  promote  the  well- 
being  of  the  Church.  Christians,  whatever  their 
antecedents,  whatever  their  nationality  or  social 
standing,  become  by  baptism  severally  members  of 
one  and  the  same  body  of  Christ :  "Ye  are  together 
the  body  of  Christ  and  each  of  you  a  separate 


1  Herein  is  found  the  key  to  our  whole  Sacramental  system. 
The  Christian  Sacraments  are  so  many  channels  down  which 
streams  of  vivifying  grace  flow  from  the  Head  into  the 
members.  To  enable  the  faithful  to  avail  of  these  channels, 
to  quicken  dead  members,  to  unite  living  members  more 
intimately  with  the  Head  ; — in  a  word  to  renew  and  enrich  in 
the  souls  of  all  the  inward  life  of  grace,  "  that  they  may  be 
filled  with  the  fruit  of  justice  through  Jesus  Christ  "  (Philipp. 
i.  11),  such  is  the  province  of  the  ecclesiastical  ministry.  St. 
Paul  elsewhere  likens  the  minister  to  a  husbandman  who  tends 
a  vineyard.  He  labours  much  to  increase  the  vineshoots  and 
to  enrich  their  inner  life.  All  increase,  however,  comes  from 
God  alone  through  Christ  {cfr.  1  Cor.  ix.  7  ;  iii.  5-7). 


46  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

member.  1  .  .  .  For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body  whether  Jew  or  gentile 
whether  bond  or  free."  ^ 

Members  are  endowed  with  a  variety  of  gifts. 
Some  are  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some 
evangelists,  etc.,  but,  as  members  of  one  body,  each 
is  expected  to  discharge  his  proper  function,  to 
promote  the  well-being  of  his  fellow-members  and 
of  the  whole.  ^  Hence,  x«P'''^At«'^«  whose  exercise 
edifies  the  Church,  are  to  be  preferred  to 
those  which  primarily  benefit  their  possessors.^ 
Christians  should  be  '  zealous '  for  the  former ; 
and  those  who  are  endowed  with  them  should 
strive  so  to  exercise  them  as  "to  build  up  the 
Church."  ^    Paul  himself  sets  an  example.    In  his 


*  Gr.  v/ieis  8e  ecTTt  crw/xa  Xpianov  .  .  .  The  translation  . 
"  Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ  "  seems  at  tirst  sight  to  be  scarcely 
accurate  seeing  that  the  original  is  o-w/xa  XpLo-rov  not  to  <rw/xa  Xp. 
Most  exegetical  critics,  however,  are  agreed  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  arrive  at  the  exact  meaning  (a  or  the)  by  a  mere 
grammatical  examination  of  the  passage.  It  is  best,  perhaps, 
to  read  :  '  Ye  are  Christ's  body,"  leaving  the  precise  thought 
(as  in  the  original)  more  or  less  indeterminate  {cfr.  iii.  16  ; 

vao'S  6€0v). 

Kai  fieXy  ck  jxeXovs  :  Such  is  the  reading  in  our  text ;  "  but 
the  evidence  is  decisively  in  favour  of  Kai  fxeXyj  Ik  ixepo-ixs  = 
'  et  membra  ex  parte.'  This  means  either  that  they  were 
members  each  in  his  assigned  part ;  or,  more  probably  that, 
taken  severally,  individually  (e/c  fiepovs)  they  were  members  " 
(MacRory :  Comyn.  in  Cor.  p.  192  ;  cfr.,  Lindsay,  op.  cit., 
p.  14). 

^  ib.  V.  13.  4  if)  xiv.  2  sqq. 

^  ib.  vv.  21  sqg  5  1  Cor.  xiv.  26. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  47 

ministry  he  seeks  not  his  own  good,  but  the  good 
of  all.i 

Writing  to  the  Romans  his  doctrine  is  similar. 
God  has  mercifully  poured  out  the  riches  of  His 
glory  upon  .Christians,  calling  them,  not  from  the 
Jews  only,  but  from  the  gentiles  as  well.^  Under 
the  new  dispensation  there  is  no  distinction  of  race. 
All  are  equally  God's  people — sons  of  the  living 
God.^  At  baptism  we  die  to  sin,  emerging  from  the 
waters  of  regeneration  into  a  new  life  of  grace  in 
Christ  Jesus.*  The  Church  is  an  organic  unit. 
Christians  are  severally  members  of  Christ's  body, 
each  having  his  proper  endowment  or  function : 
"  For  as  in  one  body  we  have  many  members,  but 
all  have  not  the  same  office,  so  we,  being  many  are 
one  body  in  Christ  and  fellow-members  of  one 
another."  ^  Christians  should,  therefore,  edify 
each  other.  ^ 

And  to  the  Colossians :  A  great  mystery,  long- 
hidden,  has  been  revealed.'  Gentiles  are  co-heirs 
of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints.  They  have  been 
translated  by  the  Father  into  the  kingdom  of  His 
Divine  Son,  through  Whose  death  sinners  have 
been  saved.  ^  By  baptism,  those  dead  in  sin  have 
been  "  quickened  together  with  Christ."  ®     The 


1  Cor.  X.  33.  ^  ib.  xii.  4-6. 

2  Rom.  ix.  23,  24.  «  ib.  xv.  12. 

3  ib.  25,  26.  7  Col.  i.  26. 

4  ib.  vi.  2-5.  8  ib.  v.  12. 

^  ib.  ii.  12  sqq. 


48  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

Church  is  His  mystical  body  of  which  all  are 
members.^  Christ  is  the  Head.  In  Him  dwells, 
bodily,  the  fulness  of  the  God-head,  and  in  Him  we 
are  made  fulL^  Christians  should,  therefore,  hold 
fast  to  the  Head :  "  from  Which  the  whole  body 
by  joints  and  bands  being  supplied  with  nourish- 
ment and  compacted,  increaseth  with  ^  the  increase 
of  God."  4 

To  sum  up :  The  Church  is  cosmopolitan.  Her 
doors  are  open  to  all  men.  "  In  Christ  Jesus 
neither  circumcision  availeth  anything  nor  un- 
circumcision  but  faith  that  worketh  by  charity."  ^ 
In  the  new  Dispensation  :  "  there  is  neither  gentile 
nor  Jew,  circumcision  or  unch^cumcision,  Barbarian 
nor  Scythian,  bond  nor  free  ;  but  Christ  is  aU  and 
in  all."  « 

The  Church  is  also  one.  Christians,  diversity  of 
situation  notwithstanding,  are  members  of  one 
body.'  They  form  together  a  rounded  whole,  a 
unit.  The  unity  of  the  Church  is  organic  and 
visible.     It  is  the  unity  of  an  external  association. 


1  Col.  i.  24. 

2  ib.  ii.  9-10. 

R.  V.  The  Greek  is  av^n  ttjv  av^rjartv  tov  Otov : 
Vulg. :  crescit  ("  groweth  unto  "). 

"  ih.  ii.  19. 

5  Gal.  V.  6. 

«  Col.  ill.  11. 

'  Corpus — the  technical  legal  term  to  designate  an 
association  {cfr.  Bat.  (yp.  cit.,  p.  125). 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  49 


Protestantism 

The  "  invisible  Church  "  theory  is  not  Pauline. 
The  body  of  which  the  great  apostle  speaks  so 
much  is  an  external  society.  We  become  members 
by  submitting  to  an  external  rite  of  initiation : 
"For,  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body  whether  Jews  or  gentiles  whether  bond  or 
free."  ^  Hence  the  body  can  be  divided  by 
schism.  2 

Christianity  is  a  dispersion  of  societies  ;  but,  for 
St.  Paul,  there  is  also  a  society  of  societies.^  The 
Church  Universal  has  a  visible  foundation.  It  is 
"  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets  "  * — not  on  the  foundation  laid  by  these, 
but  rather  on  the  foundation  consisting  of  them.^ 
The  apostles  together  form  the  foundation  of  an 
edifice  into  which  are  built  all  the  followers  of 
Jesus.  Christians,  then,  constitute  a  visible,  con- 
solidated unit.  An  edifice  having  a  visible  founda- 
tion is  itself  visible  as  such. 

Then,  there  is  the  visible  ministry.  Christ  con- 
stituted some  members  of  His  body  "  apostles,  and 
some   evangelists,   and   other   some   pastors   and 


1  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

2  ib.  V.  25. 

3  cfr.  1  Tim.  iii.  15  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  16  ;  xii.  28  ;  Eph.  v.  23,  24. 
*  Eph.  ii.  19  sqq. 

5  cfr.  Hitchcock,  op.  cif.,  p.  207. 


60  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

teachers,"  to  minister  visibly  in  His  Church.  ^  This 
ministry  is  doctrinal  and  authoritative.  Its  exer- 
cise will  result  in  unity  and  integrity  of  belief 
among  the  faithful :  "  Until  we  all  attain  unto  the 
unity  of  the  faith  and  the  full  knowledge  of  the 
Son  of  God."  ^  We  may  add  that  the  "  pastors 
and  teachers  "  here  referred  to  are  the  elders, — the 
Shepherds  of  Christ's  fiock,^  some  of  whom  we 
have  found  legislating  for  the  entire  Church  in  the 
"  Council  "  of  Jerusalem. 

The  apostles  shepherd  the  faithful.'*  They  are 
the  authoritative  "  custodians  of  the  mysteries  of 
God."  ^  Their  ministry  has  been  assigned  them 
by  God  Himself.  They  are  His  ambassadors. 
"  He  hath  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion ;  for  God  indeed  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  to  Himself,  not  imputing  to  them  their  sins, 
and  He  hath  placed  in  us  the  word  of  reconciliation. 
For  Christ,  therefore,  we  are  ambassadors,  God  as 
it  were  exhorting  by  us."  ^  The  apostles  are 
liusbandmen.  They  tend  the  soil  divinely  entrusted 
to  them.'  The  faithful  are  God's  tilled  land 
[yedipyLov)}  They  are  His  house,  the  apostles 
being  the  architects.^ 


1  Eph.  iv.  11  sqq.  *  j  Cor.ix.7.    c/r.  Rom.  xii.  7,8. 

-  ih.  *  ib.  iv.  1. 

^  1  Pet.  V.  2  ;  Ac.  xx.  28.       ^  2  Cor.  v.  18  sqq. 

'  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  6. 

^  ih.  V.  9.     cfr.  MacR.  :  Comm.  in  Cor.,  p.  37. 

9  Gal.  vi.  16. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  51 

Christians,  in  fine,  constitute  a  new  race  (yeVo?), 
a  new  chosen  people,  a  new  Israel  of  God.^  The 
new  Israel  is  an  external  association,  a  visible  unit. 
Paul  is  ever  mmdful  of  the  time  when  he  persecuted 
the  Church  of  Godr 

The  ecclesiology  of  St.  Paul  should  be  studied  in 
the  light  of  his  own  life.  He  was  himself  professedly 
an  apostle,  a  sharer  in  the  ministry."^  His  mode  of 
procedure  should  therefore  square  with  his  teaching. 
Are  they  found  to  correspond  ?  Is  there  anything 
more  certain  than  that  Paul  consistently  acted,  as 
if  he  regarded  the  Church  as  being  an  organic 
unit  ?  Wherever  he  preached  he  established  local 
associations,  which  were  visible  societies  or  nothing. 
They  despatched  and  received  emissaries,  letters 
and  donations,  held  meetings,  expelled  objection- 
able members,  and  were  ruled  by  a  visible  local 
hierarchy.  Paul  also  recognised  a  Church  of 
churches,*  a  unit  of  units.  While  unwilling,  as  a 
rule,  to  interfere  with  churches  of  another's 
founding,  he  makes  it  clear  that  he  regarded 
himself  as  an  authoritative  pastor  of  Christian 
communities,  wherever  situated,  or  by  whomsoever 
established.  Of  his  extant  letters  two  are  ad- 
dressed to  non-Pauline  foundations.^  Lastly,  it 
was  Paul  who  distributed  in  all  the  churches  copies 
of  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  which,  by 

1  1  Cor.  XV.  9  ;  Gal.  i.  13.     ^  Eph.  i.  1  ;  iii.  7. 

2  cp.  Ac.  viii.  3;  xxii.  4.      ^1  Cor.  xi.  16  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 

'•>  Rom.  and  Col. 


52  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

an  exercise  of  external  authority,  legislated  for  the 
entire  Church.^ 

The  unity  of  the  Spirit. — Christians  are  bound 
together  by  the  unseen  bond  of  grace  as  well  as 
by  the  visible  bond  of  authority.  This  is  common- 
place among  Catholic  theologians,  and  yet  how 
frequently  Ave  find  them  accused  of  refusing  to  con- 
cede any  inward  unity  to  the  Spouse  of  Christ, — of 
shutting  their  eyes  to  the  "  unity  of  the  Spirit." 

The  accusation  is  quite  unjust.  Every  Catholic 
child  is  taught  that  the  Church  is  one  in  being 
one  body  animated  by  one  Spirit.'^  Christians  con- 
stitute a  unit  because  energized  by  the  same  Spirit 
and  quickened  b}^  the  same  Head,  Christ  Who  is  the 
sole  source  of  that  stream  of  grace  by  which  the 
inner  life  of  the  Church  is  sustamed  and  enriched. 
If  this  is  St.  Paul's  teaching  it  is  no  less  the  teaching 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  kingdom  is  a  kingdom 
of  grace,  and  all  grace  springs  from  Christ  crucified. 

^  cfr.  Ac.  XV.  41  ;  xvi.  4. 

2  The  official  catechism  approved  by  the  hierarchy  for 
general  use  in  Ireland  treats  of  church  unity  in  two  questipns 
as  follows  : 

"  Q.  How  is  the  Church  one  ? 

A.  The  Church  is  one  in  being  one  body  animated  by  one 
spirit,  and  one  fold  under  one  Head  and  Shepherd  Jesus  Christ 
Who  is  over  all  the  Church. 

Q.  In  what  else  is  the  Church  one  ? 

A.  The  Church  is  also  one,  in  all  its  members  believing  the 
same  truths,  having  the  same  Sacraments  and  sacrifice,  and 
being  under  one  visible  head  on  earth." 

(The  italics  are  not  mine.)j 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  53 

The  principle  of  the  Church's  invisible  unity  is, 
of  course,  grace, — the  Spirit.  She  is  one  because 
her  members  throb  with  the  same  life  of  grace 
infused  from  the  same  source ; — one,  because 
energized  by  the  same  Holy  Spirit  indwelling  in 
her  members.  "  The  unity  of  the  Church,"  writes 
Manning,  "  flows  from  the  unity  of  its  Head,  of  its 
life  .  .  .  from  the  unity  of  the  Incarnate  Son 
Who  reigns  in  it  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  Who 
organizes  it  by  His  inhabitation."  ^  In  a  word, 
and  speaking  broadly,  the  principle  of  the  Church's 
iQvisible  unity  is  that  inward,  manifold,  complex 
life  of  grace  derived  from  the  Head  and  quickening 
the  members.  To  develop,  to  enrich  this  life  is  to 
"  complete  "  Christ  by  building  up  His  body. 

Are  we,  then,  confronted  with  an  "  invisible 
Church  ?  "  Protestant  divines  speak  so  freely  of 
the  "  invisible  Church,"  that  there  is  danger  of 
overlooking  the  fact  that  the  very  expression  as 
applied  to  an  eternal  organization  is  little 
short  of  a  contradiction.  If  a  Church,  how  in- 
visible ?  And  if  invisible,  how  a  Church  ?  The 
Church  in  the  New  Testament  is  an  external 
association.  Its  primary  principle  of  unity  is 
authority.^  That  its  members  are  bound  together 
by  an  inward  bond  of  grace  is  not  denied.  We  even 
speak   of  the   Church   as   a  body   energized  and 

1  Temp.  Mission  of  H.  Gh.,  p.  29. 

2  This  is  strongly  denied  by  Dr.  Gore.    I  reserve  my  criticism 
of  his  position  for  a  subsequent  chapter. 

E 


51  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  is  she,  therefore, 
an  invisible  organic  unit?  Do  soldiers  constitute 
an  invisible  army  because  animated  by  a  spirit  of 
patriotism  ?  Let  us  not  abuse  language.  The 
title  "  invisible  Church  "  is  not  only  unscriptural 
but  contradictory. 

Christians  at  baptism  received  the  Holy  Spirit.^ 
Harnack  states  that  "to  be  the  child  of  God  and 
to  be  gifted  with  the  Spirit  are  simply  the  same  as 
being  a  disciple  of  Christ.  That  a  man  is  not  truly 
a  disciple  unless  he  is  pervaded  by  God's  Spirit  is 
a  point  which  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  fully  recog- 
nize. The  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  placed  in 
the  forefront  of  the  narrative.  The  author  is 
conscious  that  the  Christian  religion  would  not  be 
the  highest  and  the  ultimate  religion  unless  it 
brought  every  individual  into  an  immediate  and 
living  connexion  with  God."  ^  We  say  that  w^hile 
it  is  true  that  Christians  at  baptism  are  filled  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  no  less  true  that  grace  and  the 
Spirit  are  amissible.  There  have  been  lapsi  in 
the  Church  from  the  first.  It  is  only  individual 
members,  however,  who  forfeit  the  "  inward  gift." 
The  Church  in  her  corporate  capacity  is  perma- 
nently animated  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  virtue  of 
His  abiding  presence  she  is  the  pillar  and  the 
ground  of  truth. 

^  Properly  speaking  the   Holy  Ghost  was  given  not   by 
baptism  but  by  the  accompanying  rite  of  Confirmation. 
2  What  is  Christianity?  p.  168. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  55 

The  Church  of  Christ  therefore  involves  two 
orders,  the  external  and  the  internal.  St.  Paul 
teaches  that  of  the  two  the  internal  is  the  more 
important.  The  visible  subserves  the  invisible  ; 
the  outward  is  for  the  inward.  The  sole  purpose 
of  an  external  organization  and  a  visible  ministry 
is  to  secure  unity  and  integrity  of  faith  in  all,  and 
to  unite  us  to  Christ  and  to  each  other  by  the  real, 
if  mystical,  bond  of  grace.  The  "  life  of  the 
Spirit  "  is  at  once  the  Church's  animating  principle 
and  her  raison  d'Hre. 

It  will  not  have  escaped  the  reader  that  Paul 
frequently  writes  as  if  the  body  and  the  "  soul "  ^ 
of  the  Church  were  coextensive.  This  is  intelligible. 
If  baptism  is  the  door  to  a  visible  organization,  it 
is  also  a  laver  of  regeneration.  By  baptism  we 
become  saints — sancti.^ 

And  yet  grace  is  amissible.  Paul  was  well  aware 
of  it.  The  apostle  who  ordered  the  excommunica- 
tion of  the  incestuous  adulterer  and  who  denounced 
"  the  uncleanness  and  fornication  and  lascivious- 
ness  "  which  were  found  among  the  Christians  at 
Corinth,  did  not  regard  the  body  and  the  "  soul " 
of  the  Church  as  being,  really  coextensive.  Facts 
had  to  be  faced,  and  even  at  that  early  date  it  was 
notorious   that   numbers   of   the    "  saints "    had 


^  V.  infra,  c.  ix. 

2  cfr,  1  Cor.  vi.  11;    Gal.  iii.    27,  and    apostolic    letters 
paaaim. 


56  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

failed  "  to  walk  worthy  of  their  calling."  There 
were  lapsi  everywhere.  Hence,  when  Paul  speaks 
of  Christians  as  if  all  were  actually  in  the  state  of 
grace,  he  merely  implies  that  baptism  made  them 
saints,  that  they  were  expected  to  persevere,  and 
that,  speaking  generally,  the  "  saints  "  were  truly 
such.    He  spoke  in  general  terms. 

Schism 

St.  Paul's  first  ^  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was 
written  during  his  three-years'  residence  at 
Ephesus.  Brethren  from  Achaia  had  conveyed  to 
him  the  disastrous  intelligence  that  divisions 
{(rxi(j-/nara)  had  arisen  in  the  Church  at  Corinth. 
"  For  it  hath  been  signified  unto  me,"  he  writes, 
"  ...  that  there  are  contentions  among  you. 
Now  this  I  say  that  everyone  of  you  saith :  I 
indeed  am  of  Paul ;  and  I  of  Apollo  ;  and  I  of 
Cephas  ;  and  I  of  Christ."  -  There  were  at  least 
three  parties.^ 

The  precise  character  of  the  arxio-fxara  at  Corinth 
is  difficult  to  determine.  Proceeding  to  explain  the 
error  of  the  factionists,  Paul  lays  it  do\^Ti  as  a  first 

1  i.e.  His  first  extant.  We  know  that  at  least  one  earlier 
letter  to  the  Cor.  has  perished. 

2  1  Cor.  i.  10  sqq. 

^  The  words  :  "  and  I  of  Christ  "  were  probably  added  by 
Paul  himself  not  as  the  watchword  of  a  faction,  but  as  summing 
up  the  correct  Christian  position  as  against  all  factionists 
{cfr.  MacR.  :    op.  cit.,  p.  8). 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  57 

principle  that  when  a  district  is  evangelized  a 
Christian  edifice  is  founded.  The  edifice  is  the 
Gospel ;  ^  Christ  the  foundation.^  Succeeding 
teachers  build  on  the  foundation  already  laid.  All 
are  ministers  of  the  same  '  word.'  To  build  upon 
a  foundation  other  than  the  original  is  to  preach 
heresy. 

Paul  himsel,f  founded  the  edifice  at  Corinth. 
ApoUos  following  him,  built  upon  the  existing 
foundation.  Their  "  gospels  "  were  identical.  The 
doctrinal  differences  which  gave  rise  to  the  factions 
were  of  the  factionists'  own  making. 

The  language  and  argumentation  in  chapters 
I.-V.  seem  to  suggest  that  the  divisions  in  the 
Church  were  to  some  extent  the  outcome  of  false 
teaching.  Paul  implies,  apparently,  that  the 
factionists,  or  some  of  them,  had  become  tainted 
with  heresy.  He  proceeds  at  once  to  state  that  if 
any  teacher  violate  {4>9eipei)  the  temple  of  God 
(by  false  doctrine  ^)  "  him  shall  God  destroy " 
{<i>6epel)^  "  Let  no  man  deceive  himself,"  he 
adds  pointedly.  "  If  any  man  among  you  be  wise, 
let  him  become  a  fool  that  he  may  be  wise.  For 
the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness  with  God."  ^ 
The  latter  remark  seems  intended  for  gnostic  ears. 


1  cfr.  Prat :   La  Theologie  de  Saint  Paul,  vol.  i.,  p.  132. 

2  1  Cor.  iii.  11. 

^  cfr.  MacR.  op.  cit.,  p.  44  ;  Prat.  :  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  133. 
*  1  Cor.  iii.  17. 
5  ih.  V.  19. 


58  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

As  to  the  factions  in  individuo,  the  Cephasites 
were  the  Judaisers,^  whose  avowed  purpose,  we 
found,  was  to  pull  down  the  Pauline  flag  in  every 
church.  "  Those  of  Cephas  "  would  thus  have  re- 
pudiated the  authority  of  the  founder,  and  con- 
sequently that  of  the  local  organization  set  up  by 
him.    They  were  schismatical. 

Of  the  followers  of  Apollo  s  we  know  practically 
nothing  ;  and  it  may  well  be  that,  as  a  body,  they 
formed  a  mere  coterie  within  the  local  church. 
When,  however,  we  recollect  that  some  members 
of  the  faction  in  question  were  probably  tainted 
with  gnosticism,  2  and  that  the  party,  as  a  whole, 
set  itself  up  in  opposition  to  those  who  proclaimed 
themselves  "  loyalists  " — followers  of  the  founder — 
"v^  e  find  it  difficult  to  imagine  that  all  its  members 
continued  to  acknowledge  the  Pauline  flag.  It 
would  not  surprise  us  to  learn  that  not  alone  the 
Cephasites,  but  some  of  the  Apollonites,  had  lapsed 
into  local  schism.^  Our  conjecture,  we  may  add, 
gains  support  from  the  fact  that  Paul's  letter  of 
reproof  opens  with  a  strong  statement  of  his 
apostolic  authority.^ 

Volumes  have  been  written  upon  the  Corinthian 


1  MacR.  p.  9,  Con.  and  H.,  pp.  349,  378. 

2  V.  supra.,  ch.  ii. 

3  Those  "  of  Paul,"  although  perhaps  imbued  in  a  measure 
with  the  spirit  of  party,  were,  we  take  it,  sound  in  doctrine 
and  loyal  to  the  established  hierarchy. 

*  1  Cor.  i.  1  sqq. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  59 

<Txi(rfiaTa.  Prat  considers  that  they  were  not 
schisms  properly  speaking,  nor  even  sects.  All 
professed  the  same  faith,  frequented  the  same 
assemblies  and  broke  the  same  bread.  They 
formed  parties,  he  thinks,  somewhat  as  coteries 
spring  up  to-day  around  orators  or  lecturers  of  note. 
He  admits,  however,  that  the  divisions  at  Corinth 
were  schismatical  in  tendency  (  .  .  .  des  coteries 
se  formaient  qui  menagaient  de  degenerer  en 
schismes)  ;  and  that  some  of  the  factionists  were 
inclined  to  censure  Paul's  acts,  and  to  emancipate 
themselves  from  his  rule  (  .  .  .  enclins  a  censurer 
ses  actes  et  a  s'emanciper  de  sa  regie). ^ 

Conybeare  and  Howson,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
tend that  some  of  the  divisions  were  of  a  much 
more  serious  character.  The  Cephasites,  they  hold, 
were  the  Judaisers  who  were  openly  antagonistic 
to  the  person  and  to  the  doctrines  of  St.  Paul, 
"  whose  apostleship  they  denied,  whose  motives 
they  calumniated,  and  whose  authority  they  per- 
suaded the  Corinthians  to  repudiate.  ...  In  every 
church  established  by  St.  Paul  these  constituted 
a  schismatic  party  opposed  to  his  teachiug  and 
hostile  to  his  person.  .  .  .  The  "  Christines " 
were  extreme  Judaisers."  - 

Dr.  MacRory  argues  strongly  for  three  parties 
only,  but  favours  the  view  that  the  Cephasites 
were  schismatical.     "  Some  of  the  Corinthians," 


1  op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  p.  125. 

2  Con.  and  H.,  pp.  378,  349,  350. 


60  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

he  writes,  "  gloried  foolishly  in  Paul  as  their 
leader  ;  others  despising,  perhaps,  Paul's  preaching, 
admired  the  eloquence  of  ApoUos,  while  others, 
again,  preferred  Peter  to  both  and  refused  to  recog- 
nise Paul's  authority.  These  were  probably 
Judaisers.    .    .    ."  ^ 

Rohr  holds  for  four  parties.  The  Apollonites* 
he  thinks,  were  a  mere  coterie  who  admired  ApoUos 
as  against  Paul ;  without,  however,  rejecting  the 
authority  of  the  latter.  The  Cephasites  were 
Judaisers  who  represented  Paul  as  a  pseudo- 
apostle,  many  of  whose  doctrines  were  directly 
opposed  to  those  of  the  original  apostles.  "  Those 
of  Paul "  constituted  a  loyalist  anti-Judaistic 
party,  whose  watchword  would  have  been : 
"  Emancipation  from  the  Law."  Finally,  the 
"  Christines "  were  an  anti-party  section  who 
themselves  eventually  degenerated  into  a  party. 
The  divisions,  he  thinks,  were  not  strictly  schis- 
matical.  Separate  services  were  not  held,  and  the 
community,  as  a  whole,  still  acknowledged  the 
authority  of  the  founder.  ^ 

Hamack  upholds  the  strictly  schismatical 
character  of  the  Cephasites.  He  conjectures  that 
originally  there  were  Jewish  Christian  communities 
in  the  Diaspora  (not  simply  a  Jewish  set  inside 
Gentile  Christian  communities),  and  that  they  were 

^  Comm.  in  Cor.,  p.  9. 

2  Rohr  :  "  Paulus  und  die  Gemeinde  von  Korinth  "  : — 
Bihlische  Studien.    Bd.  iv,  h.  4,  s.  149  ff. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  61 

not  confined  to  the  provinces  bordering  on 
Palestine.  He  also  holds  that  one  Jewish  Christian 
party  persisted  in  fighting  the  Gentile  Church  as  a 
false  church.^ 

But  the  precise  nature  of  the  a-xio-fiara  at 
Corinth  is  for  us  a  secondary  consideration.  We 
are  primarily  concerned  only  with  Paul's  letter  of 
reproof.  In  it  the  apostle  discusses  the  morality 
of  schism.  Before  examining  the  document  it  may 
be  well  to  call  attention  to  the  author's  general 
teaching  on  the  character  of  the  ecclesiastical 
magisterium. 

For  St.  Paul  the  Church  is  primarily  a  kingdom 
of  truth.  We  are  saved  by  accepting  certain 
doctrines  revealed  by  Christ  and  entrusted  to  the 
custody  of  the  apostles.^  The  "  word  "  is  therefore 
a  "  deposit,^^  ^  and  alone  constitutes  the  sound 
teaching,*  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour.^  This 
teaching  is  the  same  for  all :  the  Gospel  is  one. 

The  principle  of  authority  is  everywhere  upheld 
in  the  Pauline  letters.  To  argue  to  the  reasonable- 
ness or  otherwise  of  doctrines  proposed  by  the 
apostles  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 

"  If  any  man  ...  be  contentious,"  he  writes, 
*'  we  have  no  such  custom,  nor  the  Church  of  God."  ^ 
The  truths  of  the  new  religion  are  accepted  on 
authority.    The  deposit  is  effectively  guarded,  not 

1  Mission,  vol.  i,  pp.  61-63.  *  ib.  iv.  3. 

2  1  Cor.  XV.  5  Tit.  ii.  10. 

3  1  Tim.  vi.  20.  e  i  Qor.  xi.  16. 


62  ECCLE8I0L0GY   OF  ST.  PAUL 

by  argument  or  reasoning,  but  by  the  exercise  of 
an  external  magisterium.  The  faith  is  statu- 
tory. Prophecy  itself  is  genuine  only  when  it 
conforms  to  the  received  teaching.^ 

The  magisterium  will  not  lapse  -w  ith  the  death 
of  the  apostles.  The  deposit  will  be  entrusi:ed  by 
them  to  the  custody  of  a  line  of  successors  who 
alone  will  constitute  its  authoritative  guardians 
and  exponents.  2  Subjection  to  ecclesiastical 
authority  is  the  Christian's  sole  safeguard  in  matters 
of  faith  and  of  discipline.  Schism  is  ruinous.  To 
break  with  the  Church  is  to  break  with  the  "  pillar 
and  the  ground  of  truth."  ^ 

The  Church  speaks  with  an  authoritativeness 
that  is  absolute.  From  her  teaching  there  is  no 
appeal.  "  Though  we  or  an  angel  from  heaven 
preach  unto  you  any  other  gospel  than  that 
which  we  have  preached  unto  you  let  him  be 
anathema."  *  Definitive  teaching  is  absolutely 
irreformable. 

The  act  by  which  we  accept  an  article  of  faith 
is  therefore  an  act  of  obedience.^  The  Christian 
who  lapses  into  heresy  is  disobedient.^  The  Church 
is  instructed  to  deal  with  heretics  in  accordance 


1  Cor.  xiv.  37. 

2  cfr.  2  Tim.  ii.  2  ;  iii.  14 ;  Tit.  iii.  9-11. 

3  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 

4  Gal.  i.  8. 

5  Rom.  vi.  17  ;  2  Cor.  x.  6,  7. 
«  cfr.  Tit.  i.  10. 


ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL  63 

with  the  principle  of  authority  already  explained. 
She  is  not  to  reason  with  them.  They  have  dis- 
obeyed her.  If  they  refuse  to  submit  after  two 
warnings  they  are  to  be  excommunicated.^ 

But  Paul's  teaching  on  the  morality  of  schism  is 
best  summed  up  in  the  indignant  question  which 
he  hurls  at  the  Corinthian  factionists :  "Is  Christ 
divided  "  ?  ^  For  him  divisions  among  the  faithful 
are  absolutely  sinful.  The  Church,  local  and 
universal,  is  an  external  society.  It  is  an  organic 
unit.  As  such  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  To  divide 
the  Church  is  to  divide  Christ. 

Paul  takes  pains  to  make  the  evil-doers  feel  the 
force  of  the  argument.  He  begins  by  stating  that 
Christians  "  have  been  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  Jews  or  gentiles,  whether  bond  or  free."  ^ 
He  then  proceeds  to  discuss  the  living  body  and  the 
meaning  of  its  organic  unity.  "  The  body,"  he 
argues,  "  is  not  one  member  but  many.  .  .  .  God 
hath  set  the  members  in  the  body  .  .  .  many 
members  indeed,  yet  one  body.  And  the  eye 
cannot  say  to  the  hand :  I  need  not  thy  help  ; 
nor  again,  the  head  to  the  feet :  I  have  no  need  of 
you.  But  God  hath  tempered  the  body  together 
.  .  .  that  there  might  be  no  schism  in  the  body, 
but  that  members  should  be  mutually  careful  for 
one  another."  *     "  Now,"  he  adds,  "  you  are  the 


1  Tit.  iii.  10.  3  ib.  xii.  13. 

2  1  Cor.  i.  13.  *  1  Cot.  xii.  14-26. 


64  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

body  of  Christ  and  severally  members  thereof."  ^ 
Paul  could  not  have  expressed  himself  in  clearer 
terms.  His  argument  leaves  schismatics  no  loop- 
hole of  escape.  They  are  never  excused.  In 
dividing  the  Church  they  divide  the  body  of 
Christ.  2 


1  Cor.  xii.  27  (R.  V.). 

2  cjr.  Gal.  V.  20,  21  ;  where  Paul  la.ys  it  down  that  those 
who  cause  dissensions  and  sects  {Sixoa-Taa-cai,  alpea-eis)  shall 
not  obtain  the  kingdom  of  God. 


EXCURSUS 

Ecclesiology  of  St.  Peter.- — Two  encyclical  letters 
of  St.  Peter  have  come  down  to  us.  Both  were 
probably  written  from  Rome;  one  about  64  A.D.,^ 
the  other  a  short  time  before  his  martyrdom. 

The  ecclesiology  of  these  epistles  is  quite  Pauline, 
in  expression  no  less  than  in  thought.  Christianity 
is  a  visible  unit,  a  confraternity.  ^  The  faithful  are 
co-heirs  to  the  same  inheritance,^  regenerated,  born 
into  a  new  life  in  Christ,*  Who  is  the  sole  source  of 
Sanctification  for  all.^  They  are  living  stones  built 
together  into  the  same  edifice,  Christ  being  the 
corner-stone.^  They  form  together  a  single  flock, 
shepherded  by  Him.'  They  are  an  elect  race 
(ye^o?),  a  kingly  priesthood,  a  holy  nation  (eOvo^), 
a  purchased  people  (Aao?).^  They  constitute  the 
new  Israel  (Xao?  Oeov). 

In  the  Church  we  find  a  variety  of  charisms. 
Each  member  is  expected  to  exercise  his  proper 
"  gift "  for  the  edification  and  spiritual  advance- 
ment of  the  brethren :  "As  every  man  hath 
received  grace,  ministering  the  same  to  one 
another  as  good  stewards  of  the  manifold  grace  of 


^  cfr.  Bat.,  op.  cit.,  p.  111.  ^  ib.  ii.  24. 

2  1  Pet.  i.  22.  «  ib.  vv.  3-J 

3  ib.  V.  4  ;  iii.  22.  '  ib.  v.  25. 

*  ib.  ii.  2.  8  i6.  V.  9. 
66 


66  ECCLESIOLOGY  OF  ST.  PETER 

God."  ^  Christians  are  expected  "  to  grow  in 
grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  - 

We  are  saved  through  faith.  ^  The  Gospel  is  one 
and  unchanging.*  Even  prophetic  or  charis- 
matical  utterances  must  conform  to  the  received 
teaching :  "If  any  man  speak  let  him  speak  the 
words  of  God"  {Xoyia  Oeov).^  Unity  and  purity 
of  doctrine  are  secured  through  subjection  to 
authority.^ 

Schism  and  heresy  go  hand  in  hand,  and  are 
utterly  reprehensible.  Christians  are  warned  to 
guard  their  faith  against  "  lying  teachers  who  bring 
in  sects  of  perdition  {alpea-ei?  aTrwXeia?)  and  deny  the 
Lord  Who  bought  them."  '^  A  dreadful  retribution 
awaits  such  evil-doers :  "  The  Lord  knoweth  how . . . 
to  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment,  to 
be  tormented ;  and  especially  them  who  walk  after 
the  flesh  in  the  lust  of  uncleanness  and  despise 
government.  Audacious  and  self-willed  they  fear 
not  to  bring  in  sects  blaspheming."  ^ 


1  1  Pet.  iv.  10.  *  1  Pet.  i.  25. 

2  2  Pet.  iii.  18.  ^  ^^  jy    n 

3  ib.  i.  3.  ^  ih.  v. 

'  2  Pet.  ii.  1.  St.  Peter  seems  to  have  here  in  mind  those 
primitive  perverters  of  the  New  Message  who,  proclaiming  that 
the  Law  no  longer  existed  for  the  Christian,  found  in  Anti- 
nomianism  a  doctrinal  justification  of  loose  living.  They  were 
men  "  who  lived  riotously,  through  whom  the  way  of  truth 
was  evil  spoken  of  "  {ib.  v.  2). 

8  ib.  V.  10. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  PERSONAL   TEACHING   OF  JESUS 

The  Christ  in  Prophecy 

A  DISCUSSION  of  the  character  and  the  oflSce  of 
the  Messias  foretold  by  the  Holy  Spirit  forms  the 
best  introduction  to  the  ecclesiology  of  Jesus. 
The  Galilean  Prophet  proclaimed  Himself  the 
Christ  or  nothing.  ^     When  the  Samaritan  woman 

1  Every  name  which  our  Lord  applies  to  Himself  or  accepts 
has  attached  to  it  a  Messianic  significance  : 

(a)  Jesus  (Gr. 'It/o-oGs,  Hebr.  yJlty*;  :  '  Yahve  is  salvation  '). 
This  was  a  common  male  name  among  the  Jews,  but 
was  divinely  bestowed  upon  the  Son  of  Mary  because 
He  was  to  "  save  His  people  from  their  sins " 
(Mt.  i.  21). 
(6)  Christ  (Gr.  xP'^-to's  :  '  anointed  '). — This  name  is  an 
exact    rendering    of    the    Hebrew  rT'S^JD  Messiah. 

~         •  T 

Jesus  accepted  the  title  6  x/''o"'"os  on  at  least  two 
occasions  (Mt.  xvi.  16,  17  ;  Mk.  xiv.  61,  62). 
(c)  Son  of  Man. — This  is  our  Lord's  favourite  title.  The 
expression  was  originally  nothing  more  than  a  char- 
acteristic Hebraism  for  '  man  '  (c/r.  Job  xxv.  6). 
"  But  the  use  to  which  David  put  it  in  designating 
one  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Most  High 
(Ps.  Ixxix.  16-18),  and  the  meaning  which  Daniel 
gave  it  as  denoting  Him  to  whom  the  Empire  of  the 
world  had  been  promised  for  ever  (Dan.  vii.  13-17, 
10-16),  shaped  the  expression  into  a  more  definite 
67 


68  THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

observed  that  the  Messias,  at  His  coming,  would 
teach  them  all  things,  Jesus  said  to  her:  "  I  am 
He  who  am  speaking  with  thee."  ^  He  was  then  on 
His  way  from  Judea  to  Galilee  at  the  begianing  of 
His  public  life:  "And  when  He  was  come  to 
Nazareth  .  .  .  He  entered  the  synagogue  on  the 
Sabbath  day  "  and  publicly  proclaimed  Himself  the 
Christ  foretold  by  Isaias.  ^  The  claim  was  made  by 
Him  again  and  again  during  the  whole  course  of 
His  public  ministry  :  "I  ought  to  mention,"  writes 
Harnack,  "  that  some  scholars  of  note — and  among 
them  Wellhausen — ^have  expressed  a  doubt  whether 

signification  until  it  became  a  proper  name  and 
resolved  itself  into  a  characteristic  title  of  the 
Messias  "  (Brassac  :  The  Gospels,  ii.  3.  3  ;  cjr.  Just.  M. 
Dial.  c).  The  Synoptists  represent  our  Lord  as 
applying  the  title  to  Himself  seventy-nine  times. 

{d)  Son  of  God. — This  title  to  which  Jesus  lays  claim  so 
frequently,  especially  in  the  fourth  gospel,  was  recog- 
nized by  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  as  strictly 
Messianic.  For  Harnack  the  name  "  Son  of  God  " 
implies  nothing  more  than  a  special  knowledge  of 
God  as  the  Father.  The  expression  "  Son  of  Man," 
on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  him  intelligible  only  in 
a  Messianic  sense  {cfr.  What  is  Christianity  ?  pp. 
127  sqg.). 

(e)  King  of  the  Jews,  King  of  Israel,  Son  of  David. — The 
use  of  these  titles  was  systematically  avoided  by 
Jesus  Himself,  Who  saw  that  they  were  hable  to  be 
misunderstood  by  the  carnal-minded  Jews.  When 
others  bestowed  them  upon  Him,  however.  He 
acquiesced  {cfr.  Mt.  xxi.  9 ;  Mk.  xi.  10  ;  xv.  2  ; 
Lk.  xix.  38  ;  xxiii.  3  ;  Jo.  i.  49  ;  xii.  13). 
1  Jo.  iv.  25,  26.  2  Lk.  iv.  16-24. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         69 

Jesus  described  Himself  as  the  Messias.  In  that 
doubt  I  cannot  concur  ;  nay,  I  think  that  it  is  only 
by  wrenching  what  the  evangelists  tell  us  oflE  its 
hinges  that  the  opinion  can  be  maintained."  ^ 

Three- fold  Office  of  the  Christ, — The  Messias  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  prophet,  priest,  and  Jcing,  As 
prophet  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  him,^  the 
Spirit  of  wisdom,  of  knowledge,  and  of  godliness.^ 
Anointed  of  God,  He  is  sent  to  preach  to  the  meek, 
to  heal  the  contrite  of  heart,  to  announce  a  release 
of  captives  and  deliverance  to  them  that  are  in 
prison,  to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord 
and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God :  to  comfort  all 
that  mourn.*  A  Jewish  prophet,^  He  will  be  a  light 
to  the  gentiles.®  He  will  be  a  leader  and  a  master  to 
them.'  Woe  to  those  who  will  not  hear  Him  and 
follow  His  instructions.  In  His  mouth  are  God's 
own  words.* 

As  priest,  the  Messias  is  an  intermediary,  a  go- 
between.  Greater  than  Moses,  He  is  the  mediator 
of  a  new  and  everlasting  covenant.^  The  Messias 
will  reconcile  fallen  humanity  with  the  Creator. 
He  will  be  a  Saviour,  not  of  the  Jews  alone,  but  of 

1  What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  133. 

2  Is.  xli.  1 ;  xlii.  1. 

3  ib.  xi.  2. 

*  ib.  Ixi.  1,  2.    cfr.  Lk.  iv.  18,  19. 

*  Deut.  xviii.  18. 

*  Is.  xlii.  6  ;  xlix.  6  ;  cfr.  Lk.  i.  79  ;  ii.  32. 

'  Deut.  xviii.  19 ;  cfr.  Ac.  iii.  22,  23  ;  vii.  37  ;  Mk.  xvi.  16. 

*  ib.  Iv.  4. 

*  Is.  xlii.  6  ;  Iv.  3  ;  Ixi.  8. 

P 


70         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

all  men  :  "  And  the  Lord  said  :  '  it  is  a  small  thing 
that  Thou  shouldst  be  My  servant,  to  raise  up  the 
tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  convert  the  dregs  of  Israel. 
Behold  I  have  given  Thee  to  be  the  light  of  the 
gentiles  that  Thou  mayest  be  m;y  salvation  even  to 
the  farthest  part  of  the  earth.'  "  ^ 

The  Messias  will  save  the  world  by  spending 
Himself  for  it.^  He  will  even  be  immolated,  to 
atone  for  sin.^  The  numerous  sacrifices  and  sin- 
offerings  of  the  Old  Law  are  no  longer  acceptable 
to  the  Lord.  He  demands  a  nobler  victim. 
"  Then,  said  I,  behold  I  come."  *  The  offering 
is  spontaneous  and  is  accepted.  Man's  guilt  is  thus 
vicariously  atoned  for.  "  He  was  wounded  for  our 
iniquities ;  He  was  bruised  for  our  sins.  The 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him  and  by 
His  bruises  we  are  healed.  Like  sheep  we  had 
gone  astray,  but  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  Him  the 
iniquities  of  all."  He  was  offered  because  it  was 
His  own  will.^  The  manner  of  His  death  is  cruel  ^ 
and  shameful,'  but  by  it  we  have  been  reconciled 
to  God.  To  profit  by  the  redemption,  however,  it 
is  necessary  to  do  penance.® 

The  Christ  offers  Himself  in  sacrifice.  He  is  at 
once  priest  and  victim.  His  priesthood  is  ever- 
lasting.*     We   are,    therefore,    prepared   to    find 

1  Is.  xlix.  6.  5  Is.  liii.  4  sqq. 

2  ih.  V.  4.  «  Ps.  xxi.  14-17. 
^  ih.  liv.  4  sqq.  '  Wis.  ii.  10. 

<  Ps.  xxxix.  7.  8  Is.  lix.  20. 

9  Ps.  civ.  4. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         71 

reference  made  to  a  perpetual  sacrifice, — to  a  clean 
oblation  which  will  be  ojBfered  in  every  land  and  for 
all  time.^ 

The  Messias  is  also  king.  He  is  Prince  of  the 
new  Jerusalem,  a  mighty  conqueror,  who  goes 
forth  from  Sion  and  subdues  His  enemies.  ^  The 
Lord  Himself  will  strengthen  and  prosper  Him, 
giving  empire  to  His  king  and  exalting  the  horn  of 
His  anointed  one.^ 

The  Kingdom  in  Pwphecy. — The  Messianic  king- 
dom is  a  restored  theocracy.  A  glorious  future 
awaits  the  sons  of  Israel.  Sion  is  now  barren, 
despised,  destitute  ;  but  the  Lord  will  one  day  raise 
her  up  and  make  her  the  mother  of  countless 
children.* 

The  new  theocracy  is  catholic ;  it  is  a  world- 
kingdom.  The  Saviour  of  Sion  shall  rule  from  sea 
to  sea.^  "  The  ends  of  the  earth  shall  be  converted 
to  the  Lord,  and  the  gentiles  shall  adore  in  His 
sight :  For  the  kingdom  is  the  Lord's,  and  He  shall 
have  dominion  over  the  nations."  ^  The  Jews  as  a 
body  are  excluded  from  the  kingdom  because  of 
their  sins :  God  has  divorced  the  synagogue  for  her 
iniquities  and  wedded  a  new  theocracy  wherein  a 
gentile  element  preponderates.' 

The  Messias  will  reign  in  a  kingdom  of  peace  and 

1  Mai.  i.  11.  4  Is.  xlix.  14,  21. 

2  Ps.  cix.  5  Zach.  ix.  9,  10. 

3  ih.  cjr.  1  Kings  ii.  10.  «  Ps.  xxi.  28,  29. 

'  Is.  1.  1  sqq. 


72         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

security.  1  The  liberator  of  Sion  is  pre-eminently  a 
prince  of  peace.  He  is  kind  and  meek.  ^  If  He  does 
battle  it  is  in  the  interests  of  justice  and  truth. ^ 
His  kingdom  is,  therefore,  spiritual.  It  is  a  kingdom 
of  godliness.* 

Primarilj^,  however,  it  is  a  kingdom  of  religious 
truth.  The  new  Jerusalem  will  be  a  shiaing  light 
to  a  world  of  darkness  and  infidelity.  The 
effulgence  of  her  glory  will  attract  all  nations  to 
her.^  The  gentiles  shall  walk  in  her  light, «  and  the 
earth  shaU  be  fiUed  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord.** 
The  citizens  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  are  those, 
whether  Jew  or  gentile,  who  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  God  and  who  by  repentance  for  sin  committed 
avail  of  the  redemption.^ 

The  popular  concept  of  the  kingdom  was  of  a 
much  lower  order.  The  Messias  of  Jewish  imagin- 
ing was  a  great  prophet-king,  another  David,  who 
would  restore  the  fallen  fortunes  of  the  house  of 
Jacob,  and  make  Sion  the  centre  of  the  earth.  In 
the  new  kingdom  God's  chosen  people  would  eat 
the  riches  of  the  gentiles®  and  be  glutted  with  the 
homage  of  the  nations.^®  The  restored  theocracy 
would  be  a  glorious  terrestrial  kingdom,  the  Christ 

1  Is.  xi.  6  sqq.  ^  Is.  Ix.  17-18. 

2  ih.  xlii.  1-3,  14.  5  46.  ix.  1  sqq. 

3  Ps.  xliv.  5.  6  t6,  V,  3, 

7  ih.  xi.  9. 

8  Is.  lix.  20  ;  xi.  9  ;  Ps.  xxi.  28,  29 ;  Deut.  xviii.  19. 

9  ib.  Ixi.  6.  10  ib.  xlix.  22 ;  Ixi.  6. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         73 

being  an  earthly  prince  or  judge,  nothing  more. 
Such  is  the  character  of  the  Messianic  hope  which 
finds  expression  in  the  apocalyptic  and  Rabbinical 
literature  of  the  period  which  immediately  preceded 
the  birth  of  Jesus.  ^ 

Realization  of  the  Messianic  Prophecies  in 

Jesus 

Jesus  a  Prophet. — In  Jesus  and  in  His  Church  we 
come  upon  a  marvellous  fulfilment  of  Messianic 
prophecy.  Jesus  is  primarily  a  prophet.  His  is  a 
preaching  mission.  ^  He  was  sent  by  the  Father  to 
seek  out  the  lost  sheep,  ^  to  call  sinners  to  repent- 
ance,* to  save  the  souls  of  men.^ 

Jesus  a  Priest. — He  is  also  a  priest — a  priest, 
moreover.  Who  gives  His  fife  for  our  redemption : 
"  The  Son  of  Man  is  come  not  to  be  ministered 
unto  but  to  minister  and  to  give  His  life  a  redemp- 
tion for  many."  «  He  is  the  good  shepherd  who 
sacrifices  Himself  for  His  sheep.'  He  gives  His 
flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world.^  He  has  a  baptism 
wherewith  He  is  to  be  baptized  and  longs  for  its 
accomplishment.*  It  is  the  baptism  of  His  passion 
and  death.  1^  In  His  priestly  capacity.  He  is  the 
mediator  of  a  new  covenant  which  wiU  endure  for 


1  cfr.  Brassac  :  op.  cit.  ii.  1.       ^  Mt.  xviii.  11. 

2  Mk.  i.  38.  *  ib.  ix.  13  ;  Mk.  ii.  17. 

5  Mt.  xviii.  13,  14. 
«  Xvrpov  dvTl  Tro\\wv—Mt.  XX.  28  ;  Mk.  x.  45. 
'  Jo.  X.  11,  18.  9  Lk.  xii.  50. 

8  ib.  vi.  57.  10  Mk.  X.  34  ;  Mt.  xx.  18,  19. 


U         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

ever.    This  covenant  He  seals  with  His  own  blood, 
poured  out  to  atone  for  sin.^ 

Jesus  a  King. — When  the  elders  and  the  chief 
priests  arraigned  our  Lord  before  Pilate,  "  they 
accused  Him,  saying :  '  We  have  found  this  man 
perverting  our  nation  .  .  .  and  proclaiming  that 
He  is  Christ  the  king.'  Then  Pilate  asked  Him, 
saying:  '  Art  Thou  the  King  of  the  Jew^s  ?  '  "  and 
Jesus  repUed  in  the  affirmative.  ^  On  the  occasion 
of  His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  a  few  days 
previously.  He  had  been  hailed  as  "  King  of 
Israel."  ^  If,  however,  we  prescind  from  the 
narrative  of  the  last  week  of  His  ministry,  we  find 
that  there  are  on  record  only  two  instances  of  His 
having  been  referred  to  as  "  King  of  the  Jews  " 
or  "  King  of  Israel."  ^  We  have  already  suggested 
the  explanation  of  His  own  consistent  reticence  as 
to  His  kingship.  Had  He  frankly  proclaimed 
Him^self  their  prince,  the  Jews  would  have  mis- 
understood the  character  of  the  kingdom,  and, 
raising  the  standard  of  revolt,  would  have  involved 
Him  with  the  Roman  authorities. 

The  Kingdom  in  the  Gospels 

"  And  in  those  days  cometh  John  the  Baptist 
preaching  in  the  desert  of  Judea,  and  saying: 
'  Do  penance  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand '  "^ 

1  Mt.  xxvi  and  Ij.  ^  Mt.  xxi.  and  ||. 

2  Lk.  xxiii.  1-3.  *  ib.  ii.  2.    Jo.  i.  49. 

5  Mt.  iii.  1-3. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         75 

All  who  heard  understood  ;  *  the  kingdom '  was  the 
Messianic  kingdom.  John  expressly  stated  that  his 
mission  was  that  of  precursor  to  the  approaching 
Messias.i  The  reign  of  the  Promised  One  was 
at  hand  and  men  were  to  prepare  for  it  by 
repentance. 

The  announcement  took  no  one  by  surprise. 
The  time  was  accomplished.  Daniel's  seventy 
weeks  of  years  were  already  filled,  and  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Christ  had  been  eagerly  awaited. 

In  the  gospels  we  find  the  Messianic  kingdom 
referred  to  by  various  names.  It  is  spoken  of  as 
"  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  ^  "  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  ^  "  the  kingdom  of  Christ,"  *  or,  simply, 
"  the  kingdom."  ^  Occasionally  the  name  is 
synonymous  with  life  eternal,^  and,  in  one  or  two 
instances,  it  seems  to  denote  nothing  more  than 
God's  invisible  sovereignty  in  the  hearts  of  men.' 
These  applications  of  the  term  are,  however, 
exceptional.    As  ordinarily  and  properly  employed. 


1  Mt.  xi.  10  ;  Mk.  i.  2  ;  Lk.  i.  17,  26  ;  vii.  27  :  Jo.  iii.  28. 

2  ib.  iii.  2  ;  iv.  17  ;  xi.  11,  12  ;  xiii.  11  ;  xxiv.  52  ;  xvi.  19 ; 
xviii.  1  ;  23  ;  xx.  1  ;  xxii.  2  ;  xxiii.  13. 

3  ib  xxi.  31,  43  ;  Mk.  i.  14,  15  ;  iv.  11,  26,  30 ;  viii.  39 ; 
X.  14,  15,  23,  24 ;  xv.  43. 

*  ib.  xiii.  41  ;    xvi.  28  ;     xx.  21  ;    Lk.  xxii.  30  ;     Jo. 
xviii.  36. 

5  ib.  iv,  23  ;    viii.  12  ;   xiii.  38  ;   xxiv.  14  ;  Lk.  xxii.  29  ; 
xii.  32. 

6  ib.  XXV.  34  ;  Mk.  ix.  46  ;  Lk.  xxiii.  42,  43. 
'  ib.  V.  10,  33  ;  Lk.  xi.  2  ;  Mk  x.  15. 


76         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

it  denotes  the  visible  assemblage  of  Christ's 
followers  on  earth.  ^ 

The  ecclesiastical  signification  of  the  name  is  set 
aside  by  modern  critics.  "  Jesus,"  we  are  told 
"  announced  the  advent  of  an  eschatological 
kingdom  (a  purely  future  event),  and  preached 
besides  an  inward  kingdom  (present  or  making  its 
entrance  at  the  moment).  The  latter  is  the  '  inner 
coming '  of  God  in  the  heart  of  the  individual. 
History  has  shown  that  in  so  far  as  He  proclaimed 
the  former  the  message  of  Jesus  was  husk."  ^  In 
the  following  pages  we  hope  to  show  that  '  the 
kingdom  '  of  the  synoptists  is  not  alone  apocalyptic 
and  inward,  but  ecclesiastical  as  well." 

The  Kingdom  Spiritual.— The  Jews  had  been 
expecting  an  earthly  kingdom :  Jesus  gradually 
disillusioned  them.  "  My  kingdom,"  He  said,  "  is 
not  of  this  world."  ^  It  was  the  antithesis  of  "  the 
world."     Jesus  came  as  a  physician  of  souls,  to 


^  There  is  a  notable  diversity  in  terminology  between  the 
fourth  gospel  and  the  synoptics.  In  the  former  the  expression 
"  the  kingdom  "  occurs  only  three  times  (iii.  3,  5  ;  xviii.  36). 
The  church  '  militant '  is  referred  to  as  a  flock  (x.  16  ;  xxi.  15, 
17) ;  while  the  kingdom,  in  its  glorious  phase,  or  as  denoting 
the  invisible  reign  of  God  in  our  souls  by  grace,  is  referred  to 
as  "  life  "  or  "  eternal  life,"  the  supernatural  life  infused  into 
us  on  earth  and  enduring  beyond  the  grave, — life  in  time  and 
beyond  time  {cfr.  i.  4  ;  iii.  36  ;  v.  29  ;  vi.  33,  35,  51,  53  ;  viii.  12  ; 
xi.  25  ;  XX.  31). 

2  cfr.  Harnack  :  What  is  Christianity  ?  pp.  53,  58. 

2  Jo.  xviii.  36. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         77 

seek  and  to  save.^  His  kingdom  was  therefore 
spiritual.  He  sets  it  over  against  the  kingdom  of 
Satan.  ^  Beelzebub  is  His  arch-antagonist.  He  it 
is  who  sifts  the  ministers  of  the  kingdom  as  wheat,^ 
who  sows  tares  in  Christ's  field,*  and  takes  the 
word  out  of  the  hearts  of  men.^    He  is  the  enemy 

(o  e'x^pof)^. 

Men  were  beset  by  demons,  until  Christ  came. 
He  overthrew  the  forces  of  darkness.  He  banished 
unclean  spirits,  casting  them  out  of  the  possessed, 
and  invested  His  disciples  with  a  similar  power.' 
His  casting  out  of  devils.  He  assigned  as  proof 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  had  come.®  To  the 
question  :  "  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  to 
Caesar  ?  "  He  replied :  "  Render  to  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Caesar's:  and  to  God  the  things 
that  are  God's."  ®  The  two  orders  must  not  be 
mixed  up. 

Jesus  was  the  Word  made  flesh  Who  dwelt 
among  us  "  full  of  grace  and  truth.''''  ^°  Of  His 
fulness  (-TrXijpcofjLa)  we  have  all  received.  ^^  The  Law 
was  given  by  Moses :  grace  and  truth  came  by 


1  Lk.  xix.  10  ;  V.  31  ;  Mk.  ii.  17.  *  Mt.  xiii.  39. 

2  Mt.  xii.  26  ;  Lk.  xi.  18.  ^  Lk.  viii.  12. 

3  Lk.  xxii.  31.  «  ib.  x.  19. 

7  Mt.  viii.  32  ;  X.  8  ;  Mk.  i.  25. 

8  Mt.  xii.  28  ;  Lk.  xi.  20. 

9  Mt.  xxii.  17,  21  ;  cfr.  Mk.  xii.  13-17  ;  Lk.  xx.  21,  26. 

10  Jo.  i.  14  ;  Lk.  xix.  10. 
"  ib.  V.  16. 


78         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Jesus  Christ.  1  In  and  through  Him  men  have 
been  enlightened  and  sanctified. 

He  is  a  divine  liberator.  He  is  sent  not  to 
condemn  but  to  save^ — ^to  redeem  a  race  enslaved 
by  sin.  He  frees  men  by  enlightening  them.  He 
is  the  Life,^  and  His  mission  is  to  give  life  to  men.* 
He  is  Truth  itself  come  to  enlighten  the  world.  ^ 
Through  Him  men  get  to  know  the  truth,  and  the 
truth  sets  them  free.«  "  This  is  eternal  life  that 
they  may  know  Thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  Thou  hast  sent."  '  We  are  sanctified 
through  the  truth.^  To  enlighten,  and,  by  en- 
lightening, to  sanctify  and  save :  such  was  the 
mission  of  the  Word  made  flesh. 

Jesus  was  primarily  a  teacher.  Being  divine, 
He  was  authoritative.  His  doctrines  were  strange ; 
much  of  His  teaching  seemed  impossible  of  accept- 
ance. It  mattered  not ;  His  was  the  teaching  of  a 
God-man,  and  as  such  had  to  be  received  by  every- 
one without  questioning  or  hesitancy.  His  dis- 
course on  "  the  bread  of  life,"  for  example,  so 
shocked  His  disciples  that  many  went  back  and 
walked  no  more  with  Him.  Then  Jesus  said  to 
the  Twelve :  "  Will  you  also  go  away  ?  "  and 
Simon  Peter  answered :  "  Lord  to  whom  shall 
we  go  ?    Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  ' 

1  Jo.  V.  17.  5  jft.  iii,  19  .  viii   12  ;  xii.  46. 

2  ih.  iii.  15-17.  6  j5.  viii.  32. 
^  ib.  xiv.  6.  '  ib.  xvii.  3. 
4  ib.  X.  10.  8  ib.  V.  19. 

»  ib.  vi.  67-69. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         79 

Absolute  authoritativeness  and  finality  character- 
ized the  personal  teaching  of  Jesus.  At  His  coming 
the  thinking  world  was  in  a  state  of  utter  confusion. 
Conflicting  systems  of  philosophy  distracted  men's 
minds,  and  religions  were  being  multiplied.  The 
educated  classes  were  divided  on  the  most  funda- 
mental questions,  practical  as  well  as  speculative  ; 
and  many  had  come  to  think  that  good  and  bad, 
true  and  false,  were  matters  of  opinion.  ^  When 
Jesus  stood  before  Pilate  and  announced  that  He 
was  come  to  give  testimony  to  the  truth :  "  Yes," 
replied  the  impatient  governor,  "  but  what  is 
truth  ?  "  2    Scepticism  was  rampant. 

Their  leaders  divided,  the  uneducated  were 
blown  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine.  Incapable 
of  independent  research,  they  found  themselves 
adrift  on  a  sea  of  speculation  knowing  not  what  to 
hold  nor  whom  to  follow. 

Then  came  Jesus.  Into  a  world  of  thought 
chaotic,  restless,  conflictiag.  He  introduced  an 
element  of  order  and  stability.  Teaching  with  an 
authority  which  was  absolute^  because  divine.  He 
brought  satisfaction  and  rest  to  the  wearied  souls 
of  men  :  "  Come  unto  me,"  He  said,  "  all  you  that 
labour  and  are  heavy  laden  and  I  will  give  you 

1  cfr.  Just.  M.  Ap.  i.  28. 

2  Jo.  xviii.  37,  38.    cfr.  MacRory ;  Comm.  in  Jo.  p.  313. 

^  "  In  His  preaching,"  writes  Harnack,  "  Jesus  strikes  the 
mightiest  notes  ;  He  offers  men  an  inexorable  alternative ; 
he  leaves  them  no  escape  "  {What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  38). 


80         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OP  JESUS 

rest."  1  "  I  am  the  Way,  the  Truth,  the  Life."  = 
In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  there  was  no  stammering. 
"  Brief  and  concise  utterances  fell  from  Him ;  for 
He  was  no  mere  sophist,  but  His  word  was  the 
power  of  God."  ^  "  The  common  people  were  in 
admiration  at  His  doctrine,  for  He  taught  as  one 
having  authority."  * 

The  Kingdom  Catholic. — "  When  the  Baptist  had 
been  cast  into  prison,  Jesus  came  into  Galilee 
preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
saying :  "  the  time  is  accompUshed  and  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand  :  repent  and  beUeve  the 
gospel."  ^  "  The  Gospel "  was  the  name  given  to 
the  doctrines  proposed  by  Jesus.  Those  who 
accepted  them  constituted  the  kingdom.  The 
gospel  was  the  word  of  the  kingdom.^ 

Men  are  saved  by  coming  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  The  truth  must  therefore  be  proposed  to 
them :  the  gospel  must  be  preached.  In  the 
beginning  Jesus  taught  personally  and  unaided.' 
Later  He  was  assisted  and  finally  succeeded  by  a 
number  of  disciples,  whom  He  specially  instructed 
and  sent  forth  to  preach  with  His  own  authority.* 


1  Mt.  xi.  27  (R.  v.).  3  Justin  M.  Ajt.  i.  14. 

2  Jo.  xiv.  6.  *  Mt.  vii.  28,  29. 

6  Mk.  i.  14. 

«  Mt.  xiii.  21  ;  Mk.  iv.  16, 18,  20  ;  xvi.  20  ;  Lk.  vi.;  viii. 

11, 15,  21  ;  xi.  28  ;  Jo.  xii.  44r-8  ;  xiv.  24. 
'  ih.  iv.  23  ;  ix.  35  ;  Mk.  i.  14  ;  Lk.  xx.  1. 
8  ih.  xxviii.  19 ;  Mk.  xvi.  15  ;  Lk.  ix.  1-6. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         81 

During  the  life-time  of  Jesus,  the  Jews  alone  were 
evangelized.^  He  arranged,  however,  that  the  good 
tidings  should  be  subsequently  announced  to  all 
men. 

This  is  important.  Many  modern  critics,  with 
Hamack,^  hold  that  the  call  of  the  gentiles  was 
neither  foreseen  nor  intended  by  Jesus.  When  the 
disciples  requested  Him  to  deal  with  the  Syro- 
Phoenician  woman.  He  refused  on  the  grounds  that 
He  was  sent  only  "  to  the  sheep  that  were  lost  of 
the  house  of  Israel."  ^  In  going  into  the  way  of  the 
gentiles,  the  apostles  acted  against  His  express 
commands :  "  Go  ye  not  into  the  way  of  the 
gentiles,"  He  said,  "  but  go  ye  rather  to  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  *  He  even 
announced,  that  the  apocalyptic  era  would  be 
ushered  in  before  they  should  have  completed  the 
evangelization  of  the  Jews :  "  Amen  I  say  to  you : 
you  shall  not  finish  all  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the 
Son  of  Man  come."  ^  The  apostles  would  thus  be 
judges,  not  of  the  race,  but  only  of  the  twelve 
tribes.^  Hence,  according  to  the  critics,  the  really 
orthodox  party  in  the  primitive  church — ^the 
Judaisers — disappeared    in  the  struggle  for  exist- 


^  Only  on  two  occasions  do  we  find  Jesus  concerning  Himself 
with  the  uncircumcised — Mt.  viii.  6-10  ;  xv.  23-28. 

*  What  is  Christianity  ?  pp.    182,    183 ;   Mission,   vol.   i, 
pp.  36-43. 

3  Mt.  XV.  24.  ^  ih.  X.  23. 

*  »6.  X.  5.  •  ih.  xix.  28. 


82         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

ence.  "  Crushed  by  the  letter  of  Jesus  they  died  a 
lingering  death."  ^ 

And  yet  universalism  is  deep-down  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Galilean  Prophet.  ^  This  is  certain. 
Were  we  even  to  set  aside  the  narrative  of  St.  John, 
the  historicity  of  which  is  flouted  by  the  critics, 
the  synoptics  alone  would  put  it  beyond  question 
that  Jesus  intended  that  His  kingdom  should  be 
world-wide. 

The  Precursor  was  for  expansion.  He  predicted 
the  call  of  the  gentiles :  "  Seeing  many  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Saducees  coming  to  his  baptism 
he  said  to  them:  Ye  brood  of  vipers,  who  hath 
showed  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ? 
Bring  forth  fruit  worthy  of  penance.  And  think 
not  to  say  within  yourselves :  we  have  Abraham  for 
our  father ;  for  I  tell  you  that  God  is  able  of  these 
stones  to  raise  up  children  to  Abraham.  For  now 
the  axe  is  laid  to  the  root  of  the  trees.  Every 
tree,  therefore,  that  doth  not  yield  good  fruit  shall 
be  cut  down  and  cast  into  the  fire."  ^  No  word 
here  of  nationalism. 

His  Master's  horizon  is  equally  boundless.  The 
sermon  on  the  Mount  has  to  do,  not  with  Jews 
only,  but  with  men,  and,  therefore,  with  all  men. 
Jesus  comes  to  cast  fire,  not  upon  Palestine,  but 

^  Harnack  :  Mission,  vol.  i,  p.  64. 

2  Mt.  viii.  11,  12  ;  xiii.  31-33,  37,  38 ;  xxi.  31  ;  xxviii.  18 ; 
Lk.  xiii.  28,  29 ;  Mk.  xvi.  15,  etc. 

^  ib.  iii.  7-10.  The  Baptist  preached  to  publicans  and  to 
soldiers  (Lk.  iii.  12-14). 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         83 

upon  (he  earth.  *  His  disciples  are  the  salt  of  the  earth, 
the  light  of  the  world.  The  woman's  kindness  in 
anointing  Him  at  Bethany  would  be  told  through- 
out the  whole  world  wheresoever  the  gospel  should 
be  preached.  2 

Jesus  o'ersteps  Judaism.  He  "  calls  to  everyone 
who  bears  a  human  face."  He  finds  God's  children 
everywhere.  His  personal  mission  is  properly 
confined  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ; 
and  yet  He  occasionally  addresses  Himself  to  out- 
siders.^ He  proclaims  Himself  the  Christ  foretold 
by  Isaias ;  the  Christ  whose  kingdom  would  be 
inundated  by  gentiles.  Hamack  himself  admits 
that  Jesus  was  conscious  of  being  the  Messias.* 
He  admits,  too,  that  the  Christ  of  prophecy  was  to 
be  a  world-king :  "In  the  two  centuries  before 
Christ,"  he  writes, "  the  extension  of  their  historical 
horizon  strengthened  the  interest  of  the  Jews  in 
the  nations  of  the  world,  introduced  the  notion  of 
mankind  as  a  whole,  and  brought  it  within  the 
sphere  of  the  unexpected  end,  including  therefore 
the  operations  of  the  Messias.  The  day  of  judg- 
ment is  regarded  as  extending  to  the  whole  world, 
and  the  Messias  not  only  as  judging  the  world,  but 
as  ruling  it  as  well."  ^ 

Finally,  the  parables  are  saturated  with 
universalism.    When  the  disciples  asked  Jesus  to 

1  ib.  V.  13,  14.  3  Mt.  viii.  5,  13  ;  xv.  24,  28. 

^  Mk.  xiv.  9.  *  V.  supra. 

5  What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  136. 


84         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

explain  to  them  the  parable  of  the  cockle,  "He  made 
answer  and  said  to  them  :  '  He  that  soweth  the  good 
seed  is  the  Son  of  Man.  And  the  field  is  the  world.''  "^ 
Equally  catholic  are  the  parables  of  the  wicked 
husbandmen,  the  marriage-feast  and  the  mustard- 
seed. 

I  am  aware,  of  course,  that  modem  critics 
question  the  genuineness  of  those  logia  of  Jesus, 
which  savour  of  universalism  ;  ^  but  what  is  left  of 
the  gospel-fabric  when  all  such  passages  have  been 
excised  ?  If  Jesus  did  not  proclaim  Himself  the 
Christ  foretold  by  Isaias,  and  if  the  "  good-tiding  " 
was  not  intended  by  Him  to  be  a  world-message, 
we  may  bum  not  only  the  fourth  gospel,^  but  the 
synoptics  as  well.    They  are  not  history. 

The  texts  cited  by  Hamack  to  show  that  Jesus 
was  not  conscious  of  being  a  world-saviour  create 
little  real  difiiculty.  Christ's  personal  mission  was 
confined  to  the  Jews.    In  this  sense,  it  was  true  to 

1  Mt.  xiii.  37,  38. 

2  Especially  Mt.  xxviii.  19  ;  Mk.  xvi.  15  ;  xiv.  9.  cfr. 
Harnack  :  Mission,  vol.  i,  pp.  36  sqq. 

^  That  St.  John's  Gospel  is  thoroughly  Catholic  in  tone  is  not 
questioned.  Harnack  admits  that  "  as  a  whole  the  fourth 
gospel  is  saturated  with  statements  of  a  directly  universahstic 
character  "  {ih.,  p.  42).  For  St.  John  Jesus  is  a  world-saviour ; 
He  is  the  lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world 
(i.  29) ;  all  men  irrespective  of  nationahty  are  drawn  to  the 
crucified  Redeemer  (xii.  31);  whosoever  believeth  in  Him 
(ttSs  6  TTio-Tcvov)  hath  life  everlasting  (iii.  14,  15) ;  the  law 
of  the  central  sanctuary  will  be  abrogated  ;  Christ  has  other 
sheep  besides  those  of  the  fold  of  Israel  (iv.  21 ;  x.  16). 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING   OF  JESUS         85 

say  that  He  had  been  sent  only  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel.  But  He  made  it  clear  that,  at  a 
later  period,  the  gentiles,  too,  would  be  called  to  the 
faith.  "  Suffer  first  (tt^wtoi/)  the  children  to  be 
filled,"  He  said.^  The  dogs  would  be  filled  subse- 
quently. 

When  He  sent  His  disciples  on  what  may  be 
called  their  apprentice- mission.  He  forbade  them 
to  go  "  into  the  way  of  the  gentiles  ;  "  but  during 
the  risen  life  He  commissioned  them  to  evangelize 
the  Avhole  world.  ^  Even  before  He  entered  upon 
His  passion.  He  told  them  that  His  gospel  would 
be  preached  in  the  whole  world  for  a  testimony  to 
all  nations,  and  then  would  come  the  final  consum- 
mation.^ Hence  when  He  announced  that  they 
should  not  have  finished  the  cities  of  Israel  till  the 
Son  of  Man  came.  He  was  not  speaking  of  His 
coming  at  the  end  of  the  world.  The  inauguration 
of  the  apocalyptic  kingdom  was  a  long  way  off. 

* 
Invisible  Unity  of  the  Kingdom.  -  To  be  saved, 
to  become  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom,  belief  m  the 
gospel  had  to  be  accompanied  by  repentance.* 
Christ,  like  the  Precursor,  began  His  public 
ministry  by  preaching  penance.     "  The  time  is 

*  "  The  irptoTov  of  Mark  vii.  27  is  not  to  be  pressed "  ! 
(Harnack  :  Mission,  vol.  i,  p.  39  n). 

2  Mt.  xxviii.  19  ;  Mk.  xvi.  15  ;  cfr.  ib.  xiv.  9. 
8  Mt.  xxiv.  14. 

*  (/zeravoia)  Mt.  iv.  17  ;  Mk.  i.  15  ;  Lk.  v.  32. 

a 


8G         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

accomplished,"  He  said  "  and  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand  :  repent  and  believe  the  gospel."  ^  .  .  . 
"  Except  you  do  penance  you  shall  all  likewise 
perish."  ^  Christ's  mission  was  to  call  sinners  to 
repentance.^  It  was  also  the  mission  of  those 
whom  He  sent.^ 

All  men  are  invited  to  enter  the  kingdom.  But 
not  all  accept  the  invitation.  Those  who  "  repent 
and  believe  "  are  cleansed  from  sin  and  sanctified.^ 
Their  sanctity,  however,  is  amissible.  Even 
citizens  of  the  kingdom  may  be  lost.  It  is  only 
those  who  persevere  to  the  end  who  shall  be  saved.  * 

Despite  opposition  from  many  quarters,  from 
demons,  from  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  Christ's  king- 
dom shall  increase,  its  growth  and  development 
being  due  entirely  to  the  unseen  influence  of  divine 
grace.'  Christ  Himself  is  the  sole  source  of  all 
sanctity  in  His  kingdom.  The  Son  of  God  was 
sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world  *  that  He  might 
sanctify  and  save  others. 

We  are  saved  hy  becoming  united  to  Jesus.  This 
is  the  root-idea  in  the  soteriology  of  St.  John. 
Jesus  is  the-  Word  made  flesh  full  of  (xXvp*;?)  grace 

1  Mk.  i.  15. 

2  Lk.  xiii.  3  ;  cjr.  Mt.  xi.  20-22. 

3  Mt.  ix.  13  ;  Mk.  ii.  17  ;  Lk.  v.  32. 

4  Mk.  vi.  12. 

5  Jo.  xvii.  17  ;  cjr.  Acts  xx.  32  ;  Rom.  xv.  16 

6  Mt.  xxiv.  13  ;  Mk.  xiii.  13. 
'  Mk.  iv.  26-29. 

s  Jo.  x.  36. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS    87 

and  truths  We  are  saved  by  receiving  of  His 
fulness  ('7rXj//jw/xa).2  He  is  a  living  Vine.  We  con- 
stitute the  branches.  Those  who  become  united 
to  Him  form  with  Him  a  mystic  organism.  Its 
vital  principle  is  the  invisible  sap  which,  emanating 
from  the  fulness  of  the  Vine,  permeates  and 
quickens  the  branches.  To  become  detached  from 
the  Vine-stock  is  to  die  ;  ^    Christ  is  our  Life. 

Christians  are  thus  bound  together  by  many 
inward  or  invisible  ties.  They  have  a  common 
faith.  All  who  "  believe  "  accept  the  same  truths  * 
on  the  same  divine  authority,  and  do  so  for  a 
common  end  or  purpose — eternal  salvation.  This 
end  they  hope  to  attain  through  the  same  Jesus 
Christ  Who  is  the  sole  source  of  sanctification  and 
salvation  'for  all.     Finally,  those  of  His  disciples 

1  Jo.  i.  14.  ^  ib.  V.  16. 

3  ib.  XV.  1-6. 
*  The  central  tenets  of  primitive  Christianity  seem  to  have 
been  : 

(a)  That  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  {cfr.  Ac.  viii.  37). 
(6)  That  He  died  for  our  sins, 
(c)  That  He  rose  again. 
The  expectation  of  Christ's  speedy  return  was,  we  beheve, 
general  in  the  primitive  church  even  among  the  immediate 
disciples.     Let  this  not  shock  us.     The  Master  had  spoken 
mysteriously  of  the  end  of  things.    Sometimes  He  seemed  to 
imply  that  the  final  consummation  was  at  hand  {cfr.  Mt.  x.  23 
xvi.  27,  28 ;  xxiv.  34  ;  Mk.  viii.  39  ;  xiii.  30 ;  Lk.  ix.  26,  27 
xxi.  31),  at  other  times  that  it  was  afar  off  {cfr.  Mt.  xiii.  31,  32 
xxiv.  14,  48-50  ;  xxv.  5-14  ;  Mk.  xiii.  10).    In  His  wisdom  He 
left  the  ignorance  and  doubts  of  His  disciples  to  be  dispelled 
by  experience  and  by  subsequent  revelation. 


88         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

who  "  abide  in  Him  "  are,  through  Him,  united  to 
each  other  by  the  invisible  bond  of  grace. 

Invisible  Unity  Visibly  Manifest— When  about 
to  enter  upon  His  passion,  Jesus  prayed  for  His 
apostles  that  the  Father  might  keep  them  m  His 
name,  that  they  might  be  one.  "  And  not  for  them 
only  do  I  pray,"  He  continued,  ''  but  for  them 
also  who  through  their  w  ord  shall  beheve  in  Me, 
that  they  all  may  be  one  in  Us,  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me."  ^ 

There  is  question  here  of  a  unity  which  is  at  once 
visible  and  invisible.  Invisible  in  itself,  it  is  visible 
in  some  of  its  effects.  Its  principle  is  grace,  which 
unites  us  to  God  and  to  each  other.  It  is  the  unity 
of  the  Vine. 

This  invisible  unity  has  a  visible  counterpart. 
The  inward  union  through  grace  is  outAA^ardly 
manifest.  If  Christians  "  remamed  in  Christ" — 
if  they  loved  God  and  one  another  as  they  should, 
the  visible  manifestation  of  their  inward  union 
would,  of  itself,  suffice  to  convince  unbelievers  of 
the  divmity  of  Christ's  mission.  In  the  passage 
cited,  our  Lord  prayed  that  all  His  followers  might 
have  one  mind  and  one  heart,  and  that  this  inward 
union  might  find  expression  in  outward  peace  and 
concord.  We  need  scarcely  add  that  sin  has  robbed 
Christ's  sublime  prayer  of  its  full  efficacy.  ^ 

1  Jo.  xvii.  20  sqq. 

2  Mr.  Rhodes'  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  far-fetched. 
He  argues  :  Christ  prays  that  all  who  believe  in  Him  may  be 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         89 

This  outward  manifestation  of  the  life  of  the 
spirit  is  the  sole  principle  of  visible  unity  claimed 
by  Dr.  Lindsay  for  the  church  as  a  whole.  ^  And 
yet  he  concedes  that  Christians  form  together  a 
visible  unit  "  which  is  a  society,  and  which,  like 
every  form  of  corporate  social  existence,  must  be 
possessed  of  powers  of  oversight  and  discipline  to 
be  exercised  upon  its  members."  ^  Language  of 
this  sort  on  the  lips  of  one  who  is  avowedly  opposed 
to  external  organization  as  a  principle  of  the 
church's  visible  unity,  is,  to  say  the  least,  somewhat 
strange. 

The  Kingdom  a  Visible  Society. — Followers  of 
Christ  are  not  to  live  in  religious  isolation.  The 
kingdom  is  a  society.  Repentance  and  faith  do  not 
suffice  to  save  us.  All  who  believe  are  constrained 
to  go  through  an  external  rite  of  initiation. 
Baptism  is  the  only  door  by  which  the  new  kingdom 

visibly  as  well  as  invisibly  one.  But  it  is  inconceivable,  it 
would  be  blasphemy  to  sa}^  that  Christ's  "  strong  cry  "  has 
fallen  short  of  its  full  effect.  Hence  all  who  believe  in  Him 
"  aright  "  are  to-day  visibly  one.  But  the  argument  is  really 
weak.  The  "  inconceivable  "  has,  alas  !  occurred.  Christ's 
prayer  has,  in  fact,  failed  to  secure  visible  unity  among  all 
those  who,  through  the  word  of  the  apostles,  have  believed  in 
Him.  This  is  not  blasphem3^  He  prayed  similarly  for 
invisible  unity  through  the  habit  of  charity,  and  yet  all 
Christians  are  not  saints.  Mr.  Rhodes  confounds  Christianity 
de  iure  with  Christianity  de  facto  {cfr.  Rhodes  :  The  Visible 
Unify  of  the  Church,  vol.  i,  pp.  8-14). 

1  cfr.  Appendix  B.  ^  op.  cit.,  pp.  24,  25, 


90         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

can  be  entered.  Such  was  Christ's  personal 
arrangement.  1  He  also  instituted  the  Eucharist.  ^ 
He  arranged  that  His  followers  should  come 
together  occasionally  and  "  break  the  bread " 
(o  apTo^Y  in  memory  of  Him  ;  Eucharistic  meet- 
ings would  be  a  characteristic  of  the  kingdom. 
All  this  foreshadows  organization.^  An  exercise  of 
external  authority  is  required  to  convene  a  meeting 
effectively  and  control  its  proceedings.^ 

For  Christians  a  special  efficacy  attaches  to 
congregational  prayer.  "  If  two  of  you,"  said 
Christ,  "  shall  consent  upon  earth  concerning  any- 
thing whatsoever  they  shall  ask,  it  shall  be  done  to 
them  by  My  Father  Who  is  in  heaven.  For  where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  My  name 
there  I  am  in  the  midst  of  them."  ^  Dr.  Dale  finds 
in  these  words  "  the  most  impressive  sanction  to 
the  organization  of  Christian  societies  for  purposes 
of  prayer  and  worship."  '  Hamack  regards  them 
as  an  invitation  to    Christians   to  form  concrete 


1  Jo.  iii.  5  ;  Mt.  xxviii.  19. 

-  Mt.  xxvi.  26  ;  Mk.  xiv.  22  ;  Lk.  xxii.  17  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  24. 

^  cjr.  Ac.  ii.  42. 

'^  From  the  oneness  of  baptism  and  of  the  Eucharist  we 
cannot,  strictly  speaking,  argue  to  the  visible  unity  of  the 
Church.  The  Jews  of  the  dispersion  had  the  same  rites  of 
initiation  and  of  cult,  and  yet  did  not  constitute  one  external 
society. 

'"  More  especially  if  the  Eucharistic  service  would  be  held 
regularly. 

6  Mt.  xviii.  19,  20. 

'  op.  erf.,  p.  12. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         91 

associations.  "  It  follows,"  he  says,  "  that  to 
associate  is,  for  those  who  bear  the  name  of  Christ, 
not  a  secondary  or  unessential  feature  in  the  idea 
of  the  Church  ;  it  is  a  feature  essentially  involved 
in  the  idea  itself  which  is  only  realized  through 
the  fact  of  the  faithful  thus  associating  them- 
selves." ^ 

Christ's  followers  in  each  district  would  form  a 
distinct  society.  "  If  thy  brother  shall  offend 
against  thee,"  He  said,  "  go  and  rebuke  him 
between  him  and  thee  alone  .  .  .  and  if  he  will 
not  hear  thee  take  with  thee  one  or  two  more  .  .  . 
and  if  he  will  not  hear  them,  tell  the  Church,  and  if 
he  will  not  hear  the  Church  let  him  be  to  thee  as 
the  heathen  and  the  publican."  -  The  Greek  word 
iKKkrjcrla  signifies  an  assembly  and  connotes  external 
organization.^  On  the  lips  of  Jesus  the  term  has 
its  ordinary  signification.  The  iKKKrjcrla  referred 
to  in  the  passage  cited  is  an  approachable  body 
which  authoritatively  adjusts  differences  between  its 
memhers.  It  is  therefore  at  once  visible  and  organic. 
It  is  a  society. 

Christ  arranged  that  the  local  associations  should 
form  together  one  organic  whole.  There  would  be 
a  Church  of  churches.*     His  followers  wherever 

1  V.  apud  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  pp.  19,  20.  ^  Mt.  xviii.  15-17. 

^  V.  Supra. 

*  Mt.  xvi.  18.  Dr.  Lindsay  {op.  cit.,  p.  16)  finds  in  the  word 
kKKX-qcrla  a  suggestion  of  visible  unity,  but  is  it  not  equally 
suggestive  of  visible  organic  unity  ? 


92         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

resident  would  constitute  one  fold,^  one  society. 
As  if  anticipating  the  danger  of  a  number  of 
separate  and  independent  flocks,  He  expressly 
states  that  for  His  sheep  there  will  be  one  flock 
and  one  only.- 

GOVERNMENT   OF   THE   KINGDOM 

St.  Luke  relates  that,  after  a  whole  night  spent 
in  prayer,  Jesus  at  daybreak  called  unto  Him  His 
disciples,  and  from  them  chose  twelve  whom  He 
named  apostles.^  So  important  was  this  incident 
in  the  eyes  of  the  evangelists  that  all  four  refer  to 
it.^  During  the  remainder  of  His  public  life  the 
Twelve  formed  around  the  Master  a  select  and 
exclusive  circle.  They  were  trained  and  instructed 
by  Him  with  the  greatest  care.  They  were 
specially  enlightened  by  Him  on  doctrines 
obscurely  proposed  to  the  multitudes.  They  were 
His  privileged  friends.  To  the  last,  ^^  ith  one  excep- 
tion, they  remained  true  to  Him  ;  and  after  the 
resurrection  the  apostolic  circle  reassembled  around 


1  Or  rather  "  flock  "  {TroL/xyrj).  "  It  should  be  remarked," 
writes  Dr.  Gore,  "  that  Christ  did  not,  strictly,  speak  of  one 
fold,  but  of  one  flock.  .  .  .  This  is  worth  notice  .  .  .  "  : 
on  which  we  remark  that  the  change  in  term  is  scarcely  worth 
notice  from  a  controversial  view-point,  seeing  that  the  term 
"  flock  "  no  less  than  "  fold  "  connotes  external  organization 
(Jo.  X.  16.    c/r.  MacRory  in  loc). 

2  ib. 

3  Lk.  vi.  12-13. 

4  Mt.  x.  1  ;  Mk.  iii.  13,  14  ;  Lk.  loc.  cit.  ;  Jo.  vi.  71. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         93 

the  risen  Master.  During  the  forty  days,  which 
intervened  between  the  resurrection  and  the 
ascension,  Christ  appeared  frequently  to  His 
apostles  and  spoke  to  them  concerning  the 
kingdom.  1 

As  to  His  purpose  in  selecting  and  segregating  the 
Twelve  there  can  be  no  question.  The  gospels 
make  it  clear  that  they  were  chosen  to  be  preachers 
of  the  word  and  rulers  of  the  faithful.  The  apostolic 
office  was  two-fold.  From  the  first  moment  of 
their  call  Christ  gave  them  to  understand  that  they 
were  to  be  official  exponents  of  the  gospel.  St. 
Matthew,  having  mentioned  the  call  of  the  apostles 
and  recorded  their  names  in  order,  proceeds  at 
once  to  relate  that :  "  these  twelve  Jesus  sent 
commanding  them  ...  to  preach,  saying  :  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  ^  The  risen  Christ 
was  equally  explicit.  Addressing  the  apostles 
"  whom  He  had  chosen  "  in  words  already  quoted, 
He  told  them  that,  having  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  they  would  be  witnesses  unto  Him  through- 
out the  world. ^  Finally,  the  teaching  character  of 
the  apostolic  office  is  clearly  implied  in  the  terms 
of  their  formal  commission.  "  Going  therefore 
teach  ye  all  nations  ^  ...  go  ye  into  the  whole 
world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature."  ^ 

St.  Mark  informs  us  that  on  one  occasion  Jesus, 

1  Ac.  i.  2,  3.  3  Ac.  i.  2-8. 

2  Mt.  X.  1-7.  "  Mt.  xxviii.  19. 

5  Mk.  xvi.  15. 


94         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

sitting  down,  called  unto  Him  the  Twelve.  Then, 
taking  a  little  child.  He  set  it  in  their  midst,  and, 
pointing  to  it  as  a  model  of  humility,  delivered  to 
His  ambitious  disciples  a  salutary  lecture.  ^  Follow- 
ing St.  Matthew's  summary  of  Christ's  discourse 
on  this  occasion,  we  find  that,  having  spoken 
successively  on  the  subjects  of  humility,  scandal- 
giving,  fraternal  correction,  and  the  obligation  of 
occasionally  invoking  ecclesiastical  authority  to 
check  a  wayward  brother.  He  proceeded,  still 
addressing  the  Twelve, ^  to  make  an  important 
pronouncement  concerning  the  future  standing  of 
the  apostles  in  His  kingdom.  "  Whatsoever  you 
shall  bind  upon  earth,"  He  said,  "  shall  be  bound 
also  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  you  shall  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven."  '^  The 
metaphor  needs  no  elucidation.  The  apostles  will 
be  the  authoritative  rulers  of  the  kingdom.  To 
bind  signifies  to  impose  an  obligation,*  as  to  loose 
signifies  its  removal. 

The  promise  was  fulfilled  by  the  risen  Christ. 
On  Easter  Sunday  evening  He  solemnly  conferred 
upon  them  the  power  to  remit  and  to  retain  sin  by 
judicial  sentence.  "  As  the  Father  hath  sent  Me," 
He  said,  "  I  also  send  you.    And  when  He  had  said 


1  Mk.  ix.  33.  sqq. 

2  Dr.  Lindsay  admits  this  as  ""probable  "  {op.  cit.,  p.  229). 
^  Mk.  xviii.  18.    Dr.  Lindsay  states  that  the  promise  here 

as  in  Mt.  xvi.  13-19  is  strictly  conditional  {v.  infra). 
*  Lat.  Ugare — '  to  impose  an  obligation.' 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         95 

this,  He  breathed  on  them  and  said :  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost :  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive  they 
are  forgiven  them  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain 
they  are  retained."  ^  Later  He  invested  them  with 
His  own  God-given  authority  to  shepherd  the  entire 
church :  "  All  power  is  given  Me,"  He  said,  "  in 
heaven  and  on  earth.  Going  therefore  teach  ye  all 
nations  .  .  .  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  ^ 
The  Twelve  will  teach  and  rule  with  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Master.^ 

The  Primacy 

Pursuing  our  inquiry  we  find  that  one  member  of 
the  apostolic  body  was  singled  out  by  Christ  for 
special  attention.  This  was  Simon,  the  leader 
(o  7r/o&)T09)4  of  the  Twelve. 

His  pre-eminence  is  now  generally  admitted.  In 
the  New  Testament  he  throws  his  fellow-apostles 
completely  into  the  shade.  He  is  first  everywhere.^ 
He  towers  above  the  other  members  of  the  apostolic 
college  as  their  acknowledged  chief  and  represen- 


^  Gr.  KparrJT€,  KCKpaTrjvrat.  Kpivetv  implies  a  judicial  process 
{cfr.  Lidd.  and  Sc). 
"  Mt.  xxviii.  19,  20. 

3  Lk.  X.  16. 

4  Mt.  X.  2. 

5  Mt.  xiv.  28  ;  xvi.  22  ;  xxvi.  58  ;  Mk.  viii.  32  ;  xiv.  29,  54  ; 
Lk.  V.  8  ;  xxii.  34,  54  ;  Jo.  xiii.  9,  37  ;  xviii.  15. 


96         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

tative.^  One  of  the  three  specially  favoured 
disciples,  he  figures  as  the  recognized  leader  and 
spokesman  of  even  this  select  group.  ^  Alone  of 
the  disciples  he  had  his  name  changed  by 
Jesus.  ^ 

In  the  New  Testament  Simon's  name  is  found 
mentioned  along  with  others  in  about  thirty  cases. 
In  every  instance,  except  one,  it  holds  the  place  of 
honour.  Paul  writing  to  the  Galatians  and  referring 
to  the  apostles,  whom  he  had  seen  in  Jerusalem, 
names  them,  as  I  think,  in  the  order  in  which  he 
had  met  them  :  "  James,  Cephas,  and  John."  But 
so  strange  did  the  order  of  enumeration  here  appear 
to  the  early  fathers,  that  quite  a  number,^  quoting 
the  passage,  read  it :  '*  Cephas,  James,  and  John." 
This  is  also  the  reading  found  in  four  of  the 
Uncial  MSS.^ 

The  prominence  given  to  Peter's  name  by  all  the 
sacred  writers  is  made  light  of  by  Protestant 
apologists  ;   some  explaining  that  he  was  senior 


1  Mt.  XV.  15  ;  xvi.  16  ;  xvii.  26  ;  xviii.  21  ;  xix.  27  ;  Mk. 
X.  28  ;  xi.  21  ;  Lk.  xii.  41  ;  xviii.  28  ;  Jo.  vi.  69  :  xviii.  11. 

2  Mt.  xvii.  4  ;  Mk.  xiv.  37. 

^  Jo.  i.  41  sqq.  We  are  aware,  of  course,  that  He  called 
James  and  John  Boanerges  ("  sons  of  thunder  ")  (Mk.  iii.  17) 
just  as  he  spoke  of  Herod  as  a  fox  (Lk.  xiii.  32)  ;  but 
in  those  cases  there  was  no  question  of  a  formal  change  of 
name, 

'•  Tren.,  Tert.,  Greg,  of  Nyss.,  Jerome,  Ambrose,  Aug. 

5  D,  E,  F,  G.  {cfr.  Chapman  :  Bishop  Oore  and  Catholic 
Claims,  pp.  45  sqq.). 


THE   PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         97 

apostle,  others  that  he  was  recognized  to  be  the 
Master's  favourite,  others  again  that  he  was  the 
first  to  follow  Jesus.  All  three  explanations  are 
unsatisfactory.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that 
Peter  was  the  senior  member  of  the  apostolic 
college  ;  on  the  contrary,  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  he  was  junior  in  years  to  his  brother  Andrew. ^ 
As  to  the  other  explanations  suggested,  the 
Master's  favourite  disciple  was  not  Simon  son  of 
Jona,  but  John  son  of  Zebedee — "  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved  ;  "  while  His  earliest  disciple 
was  not  Simon,  but  either  his  brother  Andrew  or 
John  the  Evangelist. 

Andrew  and  John  were  Christ's  first  disciples. 
They  followed  Him  as  a  result  of  the  Baptist's 
preaching.  Andrew  then  sought  out  his  brother 
Simon  and,  informing  him  that  he  had  found  the 
Messias,  brought  him  to  Jesus.  "  And  Jesus,  look- 
ing upon  him,  said :  "  Thou  art  Simon  son  of 
Jona ;  thou  shalt  be  called  Rock  (cephas)."  - 

The  Old  Testament  represents  the  father  of  the 
Jews  as  having  had  his  name  divinely  changed, 
when  he  was  about  to  be  constituted  the  juridical 
head  of  God's  faithful  people,  the  new  name 
suggesting  the  dignity  to  which  he  was  about  to 
be  raised.^  May  we  suppose  that  the  change  in 
Simon's  name  implied  that  he,  too,  was  to  be  raised 


1  Epiphan. :  Uaer.  li.  17.  ^  Jo.  i.  41  sqq. 

^  Gen.  xvii.  5,  16. 


98         THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

to  some  dignity  signified  by  his  new  name  "  Rock"  ? 
We  shall  see. 

In  MattheAv  xvi  it  is  related  that  Jesus,  having 
come  into  the  neighbourhood  of  Csesarea  Philippi/ 
asked  his  disciples  saying  :  '  Who  do  men  say  that 
the  Son  of  Man  is '  ? 

But  they  said :  '  Some  John  the  Baptist,  and 
other  some  Elias  and  others  Jeremias  or  one  of  the 
prophets.^ 

Jesus  said  to  them  :  '  But  who  do  you  (plural)  say 
that  I  am  '  ? 

Simon  Peter  answered  and  said :  '  Thou  art 
Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God.'~ 

And  Jesus  ansvi  ering  said  to  him :  '  Blessed  art 
thou  (singular)  Simon  son  of  Jona  because  flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee  but  My  Father  Who 
is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  to  thee  that  thou  art  Peter 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  My  Church  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And 
whatsoever  thou  shall  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be 
bound  also  in  heaven  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  loose 
on  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.''  ^ 

Simon  the  Rock-foundation. — ^The  English  trans- 
lation of  this  celebrated  passage  obscures  the 
meaning  somewhat.  In  Aramaic  (the  original)  the 
same  word  '  Cephas  '  would  stand  for  '  Peter  '  and 

1  The  Galilean  ministry  was  then  drawing  to  a  close. 

"  2t)  €?  o  Xpwrros  o  vibs  Tov  Oeov  tov  ^wi'Tos. 

^  Mt.  xvi.  13-19. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS         P9 

for  '  Rock,'  so  that  the  passage  as  spoken  by  Jesus 
would  translate :  "  Thou  art  Rock  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  My  Churchy"  where  the  apostle 
addressed  is  manifestly  the  rock-foundation.  Other 
translations  are  more  faithful  to  the  original  than  is 
our  English : 

In  Latin  the  passage  reads:    "  Tu  es  Petrus  et 
super  hanc  petram "    .    .    .    , 

in     Greek :  Sv    el    JltV/oo??     kuI     eVt     ravrj)     Trj 

-rrirpa.  .  .  ,"  ("  Thou  art  Rock  and  itpo7i  this 

very  rock "    .    .    .), 

and   in  French :     "  Tu  es  Pierre  et  sur  cette 

pierre  "    .    .    .  ,  where,  as  in  the  original, 

the  words  for  "  Peter  "  and  for  "  rock  "  are 

identical  in  form.     The  reader  can  see  at 

once  that  Simon  is  the  rock  upon  which 

Christ  promises  to  build  His  Church. 

For  centuries  this  obvious  conclusion  was  boldly 

questioned  by  Protestant  controversialists.     The 

rock,  they  contended,  was  not  Peter,  but  Peter's 

faith,  or  perhaps  Christ  Himself.     We  are  spared 

the  trouble  of  examining  this  extraordinary  position 

as  it  has  been,  at  length,  abandoned  by  its  intrepid 

defenders:    "It  is  difficult,  I  think,"  writes  Dr. 

Gore,  "  to  feel  any  doubt  that  our  Lord  is  here 

pronouncing  Peter  to  be  the  rock."  ^ 

Simon  alone  the  Bock-foundation. — Christ  begins 
by  addressing  the  Twelve  collectively:    "  Who  do 

1  op.  cit.,  p.  76. 


100       THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

you  (plural)  say  that  I  am  "  ?  Simon,  replying  for 
himself  or  for  all,  confesses  His  divine  sonship. 
Christ  proceeds  :  "  Blessed  art  ^/^ow  Simon  .  .  . 
and  I  say  to  thee  that  tliou  art  Peter  .  .  ."  The 
change  from  the  plural  (you)  to  the  singular  (thou, 
thee)  shows  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  quotation 
Christ  no  longer  addresses  the  Twelve  but  one  of 
their  number. 

He  implies,  moreover,  that  He  addresses  him  as 
distinct  from  the  others,  and  not  merely  as  their 
representative.  Simon,  we  know,  frequently  acted 
and  was  frequently  addressed  as  representing  the 
apostolic  college.  But  on  the  occasion  in  question 
it  was  not  so.  "  Blessed  art  thou,"  said  Christ, 
"  Simon  son  of  Jona  .  .  .  and  I  say  to  thee  that 
thou  art  Rock  and  upon  this  very  rock  ^  I  will  build 
My  Church."  The  addition  of  the  words  "  son  of 
Jona  "  and  the  form  of  expression  throughout  seem 
to  put  it  beyond  question  that  Christ  is  here  dealing 
with  Simon,  not  as  representing  the  Twelve,  but  as 
distinct  from  them. 

Let  us  endeavour  to  construct  a  parallel  passage 
and  consider  its  import.  An  eminent  philosopher 
decides  upon  establishing  a  society  to  preserve  and 
propagate  his  teaching.  Taking  aside  twelve  of 
his  best  disciples,  he  asks  them  what  do  men 
generally  think  of  him.  They  reply  that  public 
opinion  is  somewhat  divided  as  to  his  character 
and  worth.     Then  comes  the  pointed  question : 

^  cfr.  Gr.  supra. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS        101 

*'  But  what  do  you  think  of  me  ?  "  One  of  the 
group,  a  man  named  George,  let  us  say,  replies, 
speaking  of  his  master  in  terms  of  the  highest 
praise.  The  master  thereupon  addresses  his 
forward  disciple:  "Blessed  art  thou,"  he  says, 
"  George,  son  of  Henry,  for  thou  hast  been  divinely 
enlightened  as  to  my  true  character ;  and  I  say  to 
thee  that  thou  art  the  intellect  of  my  school,  and 
upon  this  very  intellect  I  will  build  my  society."  In 
this  imaginary  case,  can  it  be  doubted  that  George 
is  addressed  and  eulogized  as  distinct  from  his 
companions  F 

We  find  it  difiicult  to  sympathize  with  Dr.  Gore  in 
his  remarks  on  the  words  of  promise.  "  St.  Peter," 
he  writes,  "  speaks  as  one  of  a  body  of  twelve.  Is 
Christ  dealing  with  him  as  distinct  from  the  others, 
or  as  their  representative  ?  Is  the  office  to  belong 
to  him  only,  or  in  a  special  sense,  or  is  it  to  be 
given  to  all  who  share  the  apostolic  commission  ? 
.  .  .  We  contend  that  this  is  just  one  of  those 
passages  which  want  interpreting, — one  of  those 
passages  about  the  meaning  of  which  it  is  not 
possible  to  arrive  at  any  certainty  without  the  aid 
of  the  interpretation  ...  of  Scripture  itself  or 
of  the  Church."  ^  We  hope  the  reader  will  find  it 
not  only  "  possible  "  but  easy  to  interpret  the 
passage,  without  external  assistance  of  any  kind. 

Dr.  Lindsay's  interpretation  is  even  more  un- 

1  Roman  Catholic  Claims,  p.  77. 


102       THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

satisfactory.  "  Our  Lord,"  he  writes,  "  had  asked 
a  question  of  all  His  disciples.  Peter,  answering 
impetuously  in  their  name,  made  himself  their  re- 
presentative. His  answer  was  an  adoring  con- 
fession .  .  .  which  contained,  in  germ,  all  the 
future  confessions  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and 
which  made  him  the  spokesman  for  the  mighty 
multitude  .  .  .  who  were  to  make  the  same 
confession.  ...  It  was  to  Peter  who  answered 
as  representing  the  Twelve,  to  Peter,  who  was  the 
spokesman  for  countless  thousands  of  the  faithful, 
who  down  through  the  march  of  time  make  the 
same  glad  confession,  that  the  promise  was  given."  ^ 
Simon  is  solemnly  assured  by  Christ  that  he  will 
be  constituted  the  principle  of  stability,  the  rock- 
foundation  of  the  entire  church.  The  promise  is 
made  him  in  his  individual  capacity.  Hence 
it  does  not  surprise  us  to  learn  that  Christ  on  a 
subsequent  occasion  prayed  for  Simon  that  he 
might  confirm  his  fellow-apostles y^  and  that,  later 
still.  He  pointedly  singled  him  out  from  the  others, 
when  about  to  fulfil  the  promise,  the  text  of  which 
we  are  now  considering.^ 

Import  of  the  Promise 

The  Rock-foundation. — Christ  promised  to  make 
Simon  the  rock-foundation  of  His  Church.  "  Thou 
art  Rock,"  He  said,  "  and  upon  this  very  rock  I 

1  op.  cit.,  pp.  25,  26.     2  Lk.  xxii.  29-32.    ^  jo.  xxi.  15  sqq. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS       103 

will  build  My  Church  ;  and  the  power  of  death^ 
shall  not  prevail  against  her;  " — words  which  at 
once  recall  the  parable  of  the  wise  man  who  built 
his  house  upon  a  rock  :  "  And  the  rain  fell  and  the 
floods  came  and  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  that 
house  and  it  fell  not,  because  it  was  founded  on  a 
rock."  ^  Peter  will  be  to  the  Church  what  the  rock- 
foundation  was  to  the  house  of  the  wise  man. 
Through  him  the  Church  will  be  for  ever  immune 
from  disruption  and  dissolution.  He  will  con- 
stitute her  'primary  principle  of  unity  and  sta- 
bility. 

What  does  this  imply  ?  Christ,  we  have  seen, 
intended  that  His  kingdom  should  be  a  society  of 
societies,  a  Church  of  churches.  We  found,  more- 
over,^ that  the  primary  principle  of  unity  and 
stability  in  a  society  is  its  central  authority.  It 
follows  that  when  Christ  promised  to  make  Simon 
the  rock-foundation  of  His  entire  Church — her 
principle  of  unity  and  stability — He  equivalently 
promised  to  invest  him  with  supreme  authority  to 
rule  all  Christians. 

Even  his  fellow-apostles  will  be  subject  to  him. 
At  the  last  supper,  addressing  the  Twelve  col- 
lectively, Christ  tells  them  that  He  disposes  or 
appoints  to  them  a  kingdom.    Then,  singling  out 

1  Probably  the  best  rendering  of  the  original  7ri'A.at  aSov. 

2  Mt.  vii.  25.  Here  as  in  Mt.  xvi.  18,  the  English  '  rock  ' 
represents  an  original  Trkrpa. 

5  cjr.  ch.  i. 


104       THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Simon,  He  proceeds  to  address  him  as  distinct  from 
the  others.  "  Simon,  Simon,"  He  said,  "  behold 
Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you  (plural)  that  he 
might  sift  you  as  wheat.  But  I  have  prayed  for 
thee  (singular)  that  thy  faith  fail  not ;  and  thou 
being  once  converted,  confirm  thy  brethren.''''  ^ 
Simon  is,  therefore,  to  confirm  not  alone  the 
faithful,  but  his  fellow-apostles.  He  alone  is  the 
rock-foundation  of  the  Church.  When  others  are 
named  with  him  as  the  foundation  ,2  we  understand 
that  he  and  they  act  as  foundation  in  different 
capacities.  They  are  so  many  foundation-stones 
supportiQg  the  Church,  indeed,  but  themselves  in 
turn  resting  upon  and  "  confirmed "  by  the 
bed-rock  which  underUes  and  supports  the 
whole. 

The  Keys  of  the  Kingdom.  .  .  . — "  And  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
In  our  introductory  chapter  referring  to  some 
recognized  symbols  of  authority,  we  discussed  the 
symbolism  of  the  keys.  We  can,  therefore,  afford  to 
be  brief  here.  Christ,  having  promised  to  make 
Simon  the  rock-foundation  of  His  Church,  goes  on 
to  promise  him  "  the  keys  of  the  kingdom."  The 
kingdom  is  the  Church  Universal — a  visible  society. 
The  keys  of  the  kingdom  symbolize  supreme  eccle- 
siastical   authority.      Christ,    therefore,    speaking 

1  Lk.  xxii.  29-32. 

2  cjr.  Eph.  ii.  20. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS        105 

symbolically,  promises  to  constitute  Simon  Peter 
supreme  ruler  of  His  Church.^ 

The  Poiver  of  Binding  and  Loosing.  .  .  . — "And 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth,  it  shall  be 
bound  also  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven." 
The  metaphor  of  binding  and  loosing  we  have 
also  explained.  It  signifies  external  legislative 
authority.  The  universal  jurisdiction  here 
promised  to  Simon  in  his  individual  capacity  was, 
we  have  seen,  subsequently  promised  to  the 
Twelve  collectively.'^ 

*       * 

St.  Matthew^s  Gospel,  Ecclesiastical. — There  is  a 
growing  tendency  among  the  critics  to  admit  that 
the  Catholic  doctrine  is  contained  in  Matthew  xvi. 
It  would  be  a  mistake,  however — so  they  tell  us — 
to  infer  that  Christianity  is,  therefore,  de  iure  a 
church,  or  at  least  a  permanent  church. 

These  men  explain  that  an  impassable  chasm 
separates  the  apostles  from  the  Master.^     Jesus 

1  Dr.  Lindsay,  while  holding  that  Peter,  and  "  those  whom 
he  represented  "  are  here  promised  the  power  to  let  in  and 
keep  out  from  the  household  of  the  faithful,  argues  that  the 
ratification  of  the  exercise  of  the  power  depends  on  its  Christ- 
like use.  It  is  only  when  He  shuts  out  that  there  is  any  real 
exclusion.  When  He  lets  in  there  can  be  no  exclusion  {op.  cit. 
pp.  26,  27). 

2  Mt.  xviii.  18. 

^  Hamack  :  in  the  Theologische  Literaturzeitung  for  16th 
Jan.,  1909 ;  cfr.  What  is  Christianity  ?  pp.  181-183. 


106        THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

was  the  victim  of  a  tragic  illusion.  The  end  of  the 
world  He  believed  to  be  imminent.^  A  cosmic 
catastrophe  was  at  hand  which  would  usher  in  a 
glorious  Messianic  era.  "  The  kingdom "  was 
therefore  not  "  of  this  world,"  but  apocalyptic  ; 
and  the  Jews  were  to  prepare  for  it  by  repenting 
and  believing  the  gospel.  Jesus  did  not  establish 
a  society,  nor  did  He  intend  that  His  followers 
should  do  so.  The  Galilean  Prophet  had  no 
ecclesiology. 

The  birth  of  the  church,  we  are  informed,  was 
brought  about  by  the  force  of  subsequent  events. 
After  the  death  of  Jesus,  the  new  fraternity  took 
Bhape  "  automatically,"  as  a  society,  in  expectation 
of  the  parousia.  The  disciples  began  by  preaching 
the  kingdom  to  the  Jews.  These  for  the  most  part 
refused  to  give  ear.  As  a  result  the  Christian 
fellowship  became  estranged  from  the  synagogue  ; 
and  the  new  preachers,  despairing  of  success 
among  the  Jews,  finally  took  upon  themselves  to 
"  save "  the  gentiles.  The  organization  which 
came  into  being  in  this  way  was  the  church.  It 
was  conceived  to  be  the  kingdom  itself,  when  the 
disciples  at  length  realized  that  their  Master  had 
been  mistaken  as  to  the  speedy  inauguration  of  the 
apocalyptic  era. 

Such  is  Hamack's  theory.  Loisy  felt  that  to 
make  it  square  with  even  the  substance  of  the 

^  Mission,  vol.  i,  p.  36  ;  What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  125. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS       107 

synoptic  narrative,  it  required  recasting.  He 
is,  therefore,  prepared  to  concede  that  Christ 
founded  a  society  of  Jews  in  preparation  for 
the  eschatological  kingdom,  which  He  believed 
to  be  imminent.  This  society  He  subjected  to  the 
apostles,  setting  up  Peter  as  primate.  The  new 
organization  He  intended  to  be  short-lived.  It 
would  disappear  in  the  approaching  debacle,  its 
members  passing  over  into  the  apocalyptic  king- 
dom. This  temporary  society  was  conceived  as  a 
permanent  church,  when  the  disciples  had  come  to 
recognize  that  the  kingdom  announced  by  the 
Master  had  failed  to  appear.  What  was  established 
as  a  transitory  organization  became  in  this  way  a 
fixture. 

The  passage  Matthew  xvi.  16-18,  the  critics 
tell  us,  is  condemned  as  intrusive  by  all  the  rules 
of  historical  criticism.  ^  It  is  not  of  a  piece  with  the 
general  fabric  of  the  first  gospel.  In  addition,  it 
is  found  in  Matthew  alone  of  the  Evangelists,  and 
seems  to  have  been  completely  discredited  by  the 
early  fathers.  ^  Finally,  the  word  eWXWa,  applied 
to  the  kingdom,  is  Pauline.  It  is  met  with  110 
times  within  the  New  Testament,  and  of  these  86 
occur  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.^ 

^  Harnack  :  Entstehung,  p.  3. 

2  It  is  commonly  alleged  that  the  passage  is  quoted  for  the 
first  time  by  Tert.  {De  pud.  xxii),  and  by  Origen  (Eus.  H.  E 
vi.  25,  8). 

3  cjr.  Lindsay, :  op.  cit.,  p.  5. 


108        THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

Batiffol  has  written  a  whole  book^  to  show  that 
the  kingdom  preached  by  Jesus  is  not  exclusively 
apocalyptic.  Partly  apocalyptic  it  was,  of  course, 
and,  as  such,  comprised  only  the  just.^  The 
kingdom,  however,  was  realized  on  earth  as  well, 
and  under  the  latter  phase  was  established,  in  actu, 
during  the  life-time  of  Jesus.  ^     With  Him  it  had 

come    {e^Oaa-ev).* 

The  general  fabric  of  the  first  gospel  is  thoroughly 
ecclesiastical.  The  conception  and  formation  of  the 
kingdom  as  a  visible  society,  and  the  selection  and 
training  of  the  Twelve  as  its  prospective  pastors, 
form  an  integral,  nay,  an  essential  portion  of  St. 
Matthew's  narrative.  In  the  first  gospel,  too,  we  find 
reference  to  the  institution  by  Jesus  of  Baptism  and 
of  the  Eucharist,  to  punishment  by  excommunica- 
tion,^ and  to  the  church  as  an  organization  which 
is  capable  of  adjudicating  between  disputants.^ 

The  parables  recorded  by  St.  Matthew  are 
impregnated  with  ecclesiasticism.  Those  of  the 
cockle,"  of  the  marriage-feast®  and  of  the  ten 
virgins  are  found  in  his  gospel.  The  kingdom  was 
a  kingdom  of  justice,^  and  yet  all  its  citizens  are 
not  just.  The  parables  cited  represent  it  as  being 
an  earthly  assemblage  of  good  men  and  bad, — 


^  Enseignement  de  Jesus  (Bat.). 

2  Mt.  xiii.  43  ;  xxv.  34,  41.  »  ib. 

3  Lk.  xvii.  20,  21.  7  j^.  xiii. 
*  Mt.  xii.  28.  8  iij^  xxii. 
5  ib.  xviii.  17.  «  ib.  xxv. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS        109 

sinners  and  saints  being  suffered  to  associate 
together  until  the  end,  when  the  wicked  shall  go 
into  everlasting  fire,  the  just  into  life  eternal.  We 
should  add  that  the  ecclesiastical  character  of  the 
first  gospel  is  attested  by  critics  of  the  standing  of 
JiiUcher  and  Wellhausen — to  whom  Hamack  him- 
self refers  as  being  "  the  most  important  historian 
of  religion  in  our  day."  ^ 

On  the  question  of  genuineness  we  remark  as 
follows: — The  word  €KK\wta  was  well  known  to 
Christ's  contemporaries,  Greek  as  well  as  Jew. 
This  we  have  already  shown.  ^  Hence  the  term 
would  have  been  quite  familiar  to  Him,  even  as 
man.  We  note,  besides,  that  the  word  occurs  in 
the  speech  delivered  by  St.  Stephen  before  the 
council,^  and  its  use  in  Galatians  i.  13,  suggests 
that,  even  antecedently  to  Paul's  conversion. 
Christians  were  spoken  of  as  constituting  an  e/c/cXj/cr/a. 
On  purely  critical  grounds,  therefore,  we  are 
justified  in  tracing  the  term  back  to  Jesus.  We 
may  add  that  the  same  Evangelist  in  another  place 
represents  Him  as  employing  the  term  to  designate 
the  local  community.*  Is  this  logion,  too,  to  be 
discarded  ? 

That  the  words  of  promise  are  recorded  by  Mat- 
thew alone  of  the  evangelists  is  an  interesting  fact, 

1  cfr.  What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  180 ;  cfr.  Bat. :  op.  cit.  introd., 
pp.  xii,  xiii. 

2  V.  supra,  ch.  ii.  s  ^^   yjj   35 
>  Mt.  xviii.  17. 


110       THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

no  doubt,  but  what  is  the  force  of  the  argument  based 
upon  it  ?  If  we  are  prepared  to  throw  overboard  all 
passages  in  the  gospels  which  are  recorded  by  one 
evangelist  only,  we  shall  have  disposed  of  a  very 
considerable  portion  of  the  synoptic  narrative. 

That  the  passage  is  quoted  for  the  first  time  by 
Tertullian  and  by  Origen  is  simply  untrue.  We 
find  it  entire  in  the  Diatessaron,^  while  verse  17  is 
quoted  by  Justin  Martyr  ^  and  by  Irenaeus.* 
Finally,  if  the  passage  in  Matthew  be  interpolated, 
how  do  the  critics  account  for  the  fact  that  the 
MSS.  have  recorded  it  with  such  a  complete  lack  of 
hesitancy  ?  * 

The  Promise  Fulfilled 

Christ,  during  His  public  life,  ruled  His  disciples 
in  person.  Those  who  "  believed  "  became  His 
subjects.  They  were  His  little  flock ;  ^  He  was 
their  Shepherd.  When  about  to  go  to  the  Father, 
He  arranged  that  His  sheep  should  not  suffer  by 
His  departure.  He  appointed  a  vicar  to  take  His 
place  as  pastor  of  the  entire  flock.  The  vicar  was 
Simon  Peter. 

The  appointment  took  place  on  the  shores  of  the 
lake  of  Galilee.  Seven  members  of  the  apostolic 
college  had  just  breakfasted  in  company  with  the 
risen  Christ.      Of  the  number  was  Simon.     The 

1  Compiled  cite.  180.    2  Dial.,  c.  100.     ^  Adv.  Haer.  xviii.  8.  4. 
*  cjr.  Tischendorf  :  Nov.  Test.  Gr.  vol.  i.  p.  95.  Wright :  Syn. 
of  Gosp.  in  Gr.  p.  266.  ^  Lk.  xii.  32. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS        111 

meal  concluded,  a  memorable  scene  was  enacted. 
Pointedly  and  solemnly  singling  him  out  from  his 
six  companions,  Christ  addressed  the  son  of  Jona : 
"  Simon,  son  of  Jona,"  He  asked,  "  lovest  thou  Me 
more  than  these  ?  "  And  Simon,  his  soul  tortured 
by  the  memory  of  his  recent  fall,  made  answer 
sorrowfully :  *'  Yea,  Lord,  Thou  knowest  that  I 
love  Thee."  Jesus  said  to  him  :  "  Feed  my  lambs." 
Solemnly  the  question  was  repeated  :  "  Simon,  son 
of  Jona,  lovest  thou  Me  ?  "  and  the  same  reply : 
"  Yea,  Lord,  Thou  knowest  that  I  love  Thee." 
Christ  said  to  him:  "  Shepherd  my  sheep."  ^  A 
third  time  his  Master  repeated  the  self  same 
question,  now  in  an  accent  of  deep  tenderness:^ 
"  Simon,  son  of  Jona,  lovest  thou  Me."  "  Lord," 
said  Simon,  "  Thou  knowest  all  things ;  Thou 
knowest  that  I  love  Thee."  Jesus  said  to  him : 
"  Feed  my  sheep."  ^ 

Comment  upon  this  passage  is  uncalled  for. 
The  meaning  is  obvious.  Christ,  having  singled 
out  Simon  from  his  fellows,  appoints  him,  as 
distinct  from  them.  His  vicar  to  shepherd  His 
lambs  and  His  sheep.  Other  shepherds  will,  of 
course,  be  required  to  aid  in  tending  the  flock. 
Some  of  these  may  even  hold  their  pastoral  com- 

^  TTOt/xatve  TO.  irpo^ard  fiov  (Jo.  XXi.  16). 

2  Christ  in  putting  the  question  a  third  time  uses  a  new 
word  for  "  lovest."  Before  it  was  ayair^s  (diligis),  now  it  is 
a  word  more  expressive  of  tenderness  :  (f>tXels  (amas).  Simon 
in  his  repUes  uses  <})iXw  throughout — never  dyairw. 

^  Jo.  xxi.  15  sqq. 


112        THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

missions  directly  from  the  Master.  But  all  other 
shepherds,  of  whatever  rank,  must  tend  their 
respective  flocks  in  a  strictly  subordinate  capacity  ; 
all  being  subjected  by  Christ  to  the  one  supreme 
pastor  to  whom  alone  He  addressed  the  words : 
"  Shepherd  My  sheep." 

Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy  Enduring. — ^The  pastoral 
authority  conferred  on  St.  Peter  and  on  the  other 
apostles  would  not  lapse  at  their  death ;  they 
would  have  successors  in  the  ministry.  Christ's 
Church  would  endure  for  all  time.^  The  task 
allotted  the  apostles  could  not  be  carried  out  by 
them  personally.  They  could  not  preach  the 
Gospel  to  all  nations,  nor  rule  His  kingdom  to  the 
end.  The  pastoral  authority  bestowed  upon  them 
was,  therefore,  to  be  transmitted  by  them  to  a  line 
of  successors,  who  would  shepherd  the  Christian 
flock  to  the  end  of  time. 

Schism  Never  Lawful.—  The  teaching  of  Jesus  on 
the  morahty  of  schism  is  not  far  to  seek.  His 
Church  is  essentially  an  organic  unit.  His  followers 
constitute  one  society,  one  city,  ^  one  fold,^  one 
kingdom,^  Division  is  sinful  and  disastrous : 
"  Every  kingdom  divided  against  itself  shall  be 
made  desolate,  and  every  city  or  house  divided 
against  itself  shall  not  stand."  ^ 

Christians  have  been  subjected  by  Him  to  a 

1  Mt.  xxviii.  20.  ^  Jo.  x.  16  ;  xxi.  15  sqq. 

^  ib.  V.  14.  ^  V.  supra. 

5  Mt.  xii.  25  ;  cfr.  1  Tim.  iii.  15. 


THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS        113 

single  central  government.  This  arrangement  was 
permanent.!  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  He  said,  "  and 
upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  My  Church  and  the 
power  of  death  shall  not  prevail  against  her." 
Confirmed  by  her  rock-foundation  His  Church  will 
endure  to  the  end  immune  from  dissolution.  To 
remain  seated  on  the  rock  is  vital  for  the  Church 
and  for  every  member  of  the  Church.  Schism  is 
suicidal. 

Christ  preached  a  gospel  which  is  at  once 
doctrinal  and  disciplinary.  This  gospel  is  the  same 
for  all,  and  is  authoritative.  We  have  already 
remarked  on  the  absolute  character  of  His  personal 
teaching.  "  His  word  was  the  power  of  God." 
Equally  authoritative  is  the  voice  of  His  apostles 
and  of  their  successors.  They  teach  and  rule  by 
right  divine.  "  All  power,"  said  Christ,  *'is  given 
to  Me  in  heaven  and  on  earth."  ^  In  virtue  of  this 
power.  He  sent  forth  the  Twelve,  "  as  the  Father 
had  sent  Him :  "  ^  "  Going,  therefore,"  He  said, 
*'  teach  ye  all  nations    .    .    .    teaching  them  to 

1  Harnack  speaks  of  "  the  high  privilege  of  the  Christian 
rehgion  to  adapt  its  shape  to  the  course  of  history  "  {What  is 
Christianity  ?  p.  99),  and  of  "  the  freedom  to  form  church 
communities  and  to  arrange  for  pubUc  worship  and  discipHne  " 
{ib.,  p.  190).  Christ's  teaching,  he  holds,  concerns  itself  only 
with  the  inner  life  of  the  spirit  and  summarily  confronts  every 
man  with  his  God  "  {What  is  Christianity  ?  p.  187).  Jesus  was 
careless  of  all  externals  {ib.,  p.  184) ;  the  development  of 
"  forms  "  is  a  matter  for  Christians  themselves. 

^  Mt.  xxviii.  18. 

3  Jo.  XX.  21. 


114        THE  PERSONAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 

observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you."  1 

As  pastors  of  the  Church  the  apostles  and  their 
successors  will  have  Christ  with  them  to  the  end. 
*'  Behold,"  He  said,  "  I  am  with  you  all  days  even 
to  the  consummation  of  the  world."  -  In  executing 
their  great  commission,  they  will  be  enhghtened 
and  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit."^  Their  pastoral 
authority  will  be  absolute  and  enduring.  They 
must  be  listened  to  as  Christ  Himself.  To  despise 
them  is  to  despise  Him.* 


1  Mt.  xxviii.  20. 

2  ib. 

3  Jo.  xiv.  16,  17,  26  ;  xv.  26  ;  xvi.  13,  14. 
*  Lk.  X   16  ;  Mt.  xxviii.  19. 


EXCURSUS 

Christianity  and  Paulinism 

Many  modern  critics  contend  that  it  was  Paul 
of  Tarsus  who  transformed  Christianity  into 
Catholicism.  "  The  inner  development,"  writes 
Hamack,  "  which  the  new  tendency  virtually 
comprised,  began  at  once.  Paul  was  not  the  first 
to  start  it.  Before  and  side  by  side  with  him 
there  were  obscure  and  nameless  Christians  in  the 
dispersion,  who  took  up  gentiles  into  the  new 
society.  They  did  away  with  the  particularistic 
a-nd  statutory  regulations  of  the  law,  by  declaring 
that  these  were  to  be  understood  in  a  purely 
spiritual  sense  and  to  be  interpreted  as  symbols. 
.  .  .  But  the  goal  of  the  movement  was  not  yet 
reached.  So  long  as  the  words :  '  the  former 
religion  is  done  away  with,'  remained  unspoken 
there  was  always  a  fear  that,  in  the  next  generation, 
the  old  regulations  would  be  brought  forward  again 
in  their  literal  meaning.  .  .  .  Some  one  had  to 
stand  up  and  say :  '  The  old  is  done  away  with  '  ; 
he  had  to  brand  any  further  pursuit  of  it  as  a  sin  ; 
he  had  to  show  that  all  things  were  become  new. 
The  man  who  did  that  was  the  Apostle  Paul,  and 
it  is  in  his  having  done  it  that  his  greatness  in  the 
history  of  the  world  consists.  ...  It  was  Paul  who 
delivered  the  Christian  religion  from  Judaism." 

As  to  the  attitude  of  the  other  apostles,  Hamack 
remarks  that  "  if  we  praise  the  man  who,  without 
being  able  to  appeal  to  a  single  word  of  his  Master's, 
undertook  such  a  bold  venture  by  the  help  of  the 

113 


116  CHRISTIANITY  AND  PAULINISM 

Spirit  and  with  the  letter  against  him,  we  must 
none  the  less  pay  the  meed  of  honour  to  those 
personal  disciples  of  Jesus  who,  after  a  bitter 
internal  struggle,  ultimately  associated  themselves 
with  Paul's  principles.  .  .  .  History  has  shown 
with  unmistakable  plainness  what  was  kernel  and 
what  was  husk  in  the  message  of  Jesus.  .  .  . 
Husk  were  the  whole  of  the  Jewish  limitations  ; 
.  .  .  and  in  the  strength  of  Christ's  spirit  the 
disciples  broke  through  these  barriers."  ^ 

All  this  means  that  Paul  attached  to  Christ's 
message  a  meaning  which  was  not  intended  by  its 
Author.  The  gospel  was  in  itself  fundamentally 
catholic  ;  it  was  "  meant  to  he  transplanted,"  ^  but 
Jesus  was  unconscious  of  the  fact.  In  univer- 
salizing Christianity,  Paul  and  the  other  apostles 
had  the  letter  against  them. 

The  contention  cannot  be  sustained.  Now  that 
we  have  traced  the  main  outHnes  of  the  synoptic 
ecclesiology,  we  are  in  a  position  to  realize  how 
utterly  unfounded  is  the  charge  of  doctrinal 
illegitimacy — such  is  really  the  charge — ^which 
critics  have  levelled  at  the  Pauline  Gospel. 
"  Paulinism,"  we  have  seen,  had  its  beginnings  in 
Christ's  personal  teaching.  It  was  not  Paul  of 
Tarsus,  but  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  denationalized 
the  "  new  tendency."  If  Paul  stood  up  and  pro- 
claimed that  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  Law,"  ^  he 
merely  re-echoed  an  earlier  pronouncement  by  his 
Master  to  the  effect  that  the  Law  and  "  the  prophets 

1  op.  cit.,  pp.  178-183.  2  tT,^  p   jgl. 

^  Rom.  X.  4. 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  PAULINISM  117 

were  until  John."  ^  It  was  not  left  to  the  apostle 
of  the  gentiles  to  realize  what  was  "  kernel "  and 
what  "  husk  "  in  the  new  message,  and  to  separate 
what  was  outward  and  accidental  from  what  w^as 
inner  and  essential.  No  ;  Catholicism  was  founded, 
and  consciously  founded,  by  the  Galilean  Prophet. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  critics,  it  should  be 
observed,  have  given  the  lie  to  Paul  himself.  They 
contend  that  in  preaching  universalism,  he  had 
the  "  letter  "  against  him.  Paul  himself,  on  the 
other  hand,  disclaims  all  doctrinal  originality,  and 
does  so  with  an  insistence  that  is  almost  tiring.  In 
matters  of  faith  and  of  discipKne  he  simply 
imparts  what  he  has  learned  ;  and  whenever  he 
takes  upon  himself  to  issue  instructions  in  his  own 
name,  he  is  careful  to  distinguish  them  from  "  the 
precepts  of  the  Lord."  ^  Again  and  again  he 
proclaims  himself  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.  By 
direct  personal  revelation,  he  has  been  taught  what 
the  other  apostles  have  learned  from  the  lips  of  Jesus. 
Their  gospels  are,  therefore,  identical,  and  Paul,  to 
silence  his  calumniators,  takes  care  to  prove  it.^ 

Finally,  who  can  believe  that  limitations  which 
attached  to  Christ's  message,  and  which  were 
intended  by  Him  to  endure,  came  to  be  discarded 
as  husk  by  the  immediate  disciples  ?  Who  can 
believe  that  men,  who  knew  their  Master  to  have 
been  the  Son  of  God,  consciously  took  a  step  which 
was  neither  foreseen  nor  intended  by  Him  ?  To 
say  that  for  the  gospel's  sake  they  entered  on  a 

1  Lk.  xvi.  16. 

2  1  Cor.  vii.  12-15 ;  Gal.  i.  11,  12.  3  Qg^i  ^  j  ^^^ 

I 


118  CHRISTIANITY  AND  PAULINISM 

career  which  the  Master,  with  whom  they  had 
eaten  and  drunk,  had  never  sanctioned ;  ^  or  to 
say  that  they  did  so  "  in  the  strength  of  His 
spirit "  2  is,  for  the  critics,  to  say  just  nothing  at 
all.  Hamack  seems  to  feel  the  difficulty  of  his 
position  here.  That  the  personal  disciples  "  broke 
through  the  barriers  "  he  refers  to  as  being  "  the 
most  remarkable  fact  of  the  apostolic  age.^ " 
'  Remarkable '  is  not  strong  enough  ;  incredible 
is  the  word. 

If  Paul  was  pre-eminently  the  apostle  of  univer- 
salism,  if  Catholicism  found  a  home  in  his  gospel, 
his  fellow-apostles  shared  his  principles.*  Peter 
was  a  thorough  catholic  in  practice  no  less  than  in 
preaching.^  So  were  the  others.  Communities  estab- 
lished by  them  seem  to  have  been  quite  as  free  from 
"  nationalism  "  as  were  those  founded  by  St.  Paul. 

Theologians  are  right ;  it  was  not  left  to  the 
apostle  of  the  gentiles  to  inaugurate  Catholicism. 
Christ  and  the  immediate  disciples  were  also  for 
expansion.  Paulinism  is  nothing  more  than  the 
personal  teaching  of  Jesus  analysed  and  legiti- 
mately developed.® 

1  Harnack  :  Mission,  vol.  i,  p.  61.         ^  v.  supra. 
3  op.  cit.,  p.  183. 

*  At  least  subsequently  to  the  conversion  of  Cornelius. 
Harnack  states  that  "  Paul  was  not  the  first  missionary  to  the 
gentiles ;  that  he  never  claims  to  have  been  absolutely  the 
pioneer  of  the  Gentile  IVIission  "  {Mission,  vol.  i,  p.  48). 

5  cfr.  Acts  X.  48  ;  xi.  4  sqq.  ;  xv.  7  sqq.  ;  Gal.  ii.  12. 

*  In  an  able  article  written  for  the  Revue  Benedictine  (April, 
1912)  Dom  Chapman  shows  that  St.  Paul  was  perfectly 
acquainted  with  the  words  of  promise  (Mt.  xvi.  17). 


CHAPTER  TV 

THE   APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

The  Didache 

The  Didache  (SiSaxv)  is  a  very  ancient  Christian 
document.  It  bears  two  titles,  one:  SiSaxv  twv 
S(oSeKa  d-rrocTToXm  ("  The  teaching  of  the  twelve 
apostles ")  ;   the   other,   older   and   probably   the 

original :    SiSaxV  xvplov    8i^  r<ou    ScoSeKa   airoG-ToiXoov  rot? 

eOvea-Lv.  ("  The  teaching  of  the  Lord  [as  preached] 
to  the  Gentiles  by  the  twelve  apostles." ).i 
The  author  is  unknown,  but  his  work  professes  to 
be  a  summary  or  compendium  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  as  it  was  proposed  to  the  nations  by  the 
Twelve.  2  Although  the  exact  date  of  its  com- 
position cannot  be  determined,  critics  are  agreed  as 
to  its  antiquity.^     We  may  assign  it,  with  a  high 

1  The  Didache  was  discovered  in  1873  by  Bryermios, 
Patriarch  of  Nicomedia,  in  the  Constantinopolitan  or  Hiero- 
solymitan  MS.  [C.]. 

2  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  author  regards  the  Twelve, 
and  not  Paul  and  Barnabas  alone,  as  the  teachers  of  the  Wvt). 
Some  ancient  writers,  however,  who  refer  to  the  document 
omit  the  word  SuScK-a  in  the  title. 

^  The  internal  evidence  goes  to  show  that  first-century 
conditions  obtained  when  the  Didache  was  written.   Christians 

119 

K 


120  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

degree  of  probability  to  the  last  decades  of  the 
first  century.^  The  place  of  composition  was, 
most  likely,  Syria  or  Palestine.  ^ 

The  work  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  ^ 
embodies  an  ethical  or  moral  instruction  on  "  The 
Two  Ways,"  the  way  of  Life  (righteousness),^  and 
the  way  of  Death  (unrighteousness).^  This  in- 
struction is  intended  for  catechumens,  and  is 
followed  by  a  discussion  of  baptism,^  of  prayer  and 
fasting,'  and  of  the  Eucharist.^  The  second  part 
treats  of  community  life  ;  of  the  standing  of  the 
cLTToaTokoi  KoX  TTpocjji^Tai,  whlle  actuig  as  itinerant 
teachers,^  and  while  permanently  resident  in  the 
community ;  ^^  of  the  treatment  of  travelling 
brethren  ;  ^^  of  the  Sunday  Eucharistic  service  ;  ^^ 
and,    finally,    of     ecclesiastical    superiors.^^      The 


still  expected  the  Parousia ;  the  itinerant  aTrdo-roAot  K-at 
TrpO(j)T]TaL  had  not  yet  disappeared  ;  the  Eucharist  was  still 
celebrated  after  the  evening  meal ;  and  the  titles  Trpttrf^vTf.po's 
and  cTTto-K-oros  were  still  synonymous  {cfr.  Lightfoot :  Ap.  F., 
p.  215  ;  Bardenhewer  :  Pair.,  p.  20.). 
^  cfr.  Barden  :  loc.  cit. 

^  So  great  was  the  authority  of  the  Didache  in  the  primitive 
church  that  many  regarded  it  as  Scripture.  Clement  of  Alex., 
for  example,  quotes  it  as  being  inspired  {Strom,  i.  20,  100), 
while  Eusebius  notes  the  fact  that  it  had  been  wrongly  in- 
cluded by  some  in  the  canon  {H.  E.  iii.  25,  4  ;  cfr.  Lightfoot  : 
op.  cit.,  p.  216  ;  Barden.  :  op  cit.,  p.  20.). 

^  cc.  i-x.  ®  c.  vii.  ^  c.  xi. 

*  cc,  i-iv.  '  c.  viii.  ^^  c.  xiii. 

^  c,  V.  ^  cc.  ix,  X.  ^1  c.  xii. 

12  c.  xiv.  1^  c.  XV. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  121 

Didache  concludes  with  a  warning :  we  should  be 
watchful  in  view  of  the  imminent  irapovcria^ 

There  is  in  each  church  a  hierarchy  of  "  bishops  " 
and  deacons.  These  are  authoritative  teachers.  ^ 
The  Christian  is  exhorted  to  respect  the  word 
which  he  has  heard.  ^  Those  who  preach  the 
Gospel  are  to  be  esteemed  and  reverenced  as  the 
Lord  Himself.      Their  voice  is  the  voice  of  God.* 

Christianity  is  a  deposit,  a  tradition.  It  is  a 
treasury  of  truths  and  precepts  w^hich  has  come 
down  to  us  from  Christ  through  the  apostles,  and 
which  we  must  neither  augment  nor  diminish. 
The  Church  cannot  alter  the  SiSaxv :  "  All  your 
deeds  do  as  you  find  it  in  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord.^ 
.  .  .  Thou  shalt  never  forsake  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord,  but  shalt  keep  those  things 
which  thou  hast  received,  neither  adding  to  them 
not  taking  away  from  them."  *  Even  prophetic 
teaching  which  is  found  to  be  at  variance  with  the 
received  teaching  is  to  be  rejected.  "  Whosoever 
shall  teach  you  those  things  which  have  been  said 
before,  receive  him ;  but  if  he  teach  a  different 
doctrine,  receive  him  not."  '  Defined  teaching 
is  irreformable. 

All  who  are  baptized  form  together  one  Church 
of  God.    The  Eucharistic  prayer  preserved  in  the 

1  c.  xvi.  *  e.  iv. 

2  c.  XV.  ^  c.  iv. 
2  c.  iii.                                     •  c.  iv. 

'  c.  xi. 


122  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

Didache  contains  the  following  sublime  passage : 
"  As  this  broken  bread  was  scattered  upon  the 
mountains  and  being  gathered  together  became 
one,  so  may  Thy  Church  be  gathered  together  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth  into  Thy  Kingdom. ^  .  .  . 
Remember,  Lord,  Thy  Church,  which  has  been 
sanctified,  to  gather  it  together  from  the  four 
winds  into  the  Kingdom  which  Thou  hast  prepared 
for  it."  2  There  is,  therefore,  the  local  church, 
with  its  resident  hierarchy,^  to  which  itinerant 
preachers  are  subordinated  ;  *  and  there  is  also  the 
Church  of  all  churches.  Schii:m  is  expressly  re- 
probated.^ 

The  Epistle  of  Clement 

St.  Clement  was  Bishop  of  Rome  towards  the 
close  of  the  first  century.    Tertullian®  and  many  of 


^  Here  the  author  interjects  :  "  But  let  no  one  eat  or  drink 
of  this  Eucharistic  thanksgiving  save  such  as  have  been 
baptized." 

2  cc.  ix,  X. 

^  c,  XV. 

^  The  contention  of  many  modern  critics  that  the  Church 
of  the  Didache  was  instructed  exclusively  by  itinerant 
missionaries  cannot  be  sustained.  The  tradition  received 
from  Christ  through  the  apostles  and  their  successors  was 
regarded  as  alone  authoritative.  Hence  the  doctrines  of  the 
itinerant  missioner  were  carefully  scrutinized  by  the  Church 
and  rejected  if  found  to  be  at  variance  with  "  the  things  which 
had  been  said  before  "  (w.  supra). 

^  ov  TTOL-qa-ets  (r\L(T}ia  (c.  iv). 

^  De  Praescript.  xxxii. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  123 

the  Latin  Fathers  name  him  as  Peter's  immediate 
successor.^  Other  early  authorities,  including 
Augustine,  2  Optatus,^^  and  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions,^ place  him  after  Linus,  giving  as  the  order : 
'  Peter,  Linus,  Clement.'  Others,  again,  name  him 
fourth,  his  immediate  predecessor  being  Anacletus 
(or  Cletus).  The  last-mentioned  order — '  Peter, 
Lhius,  Anacletus,  Clement ' — is  that  given  by 
Irenaeus,^  Eusebius,^  Jerome,^  and  Epiphanius,^ 
and  seems  to  be,  on  the  whole,  the  most  trust- 
worthy.^ For  our  purposes,  however,  Clement's 
exact  position  in  the  line  of  Roman  bishops 
matters  little.  We  are  satisfied  to  know  that  he 
was  a  first  century  bishop  of  Rome,  and  this  is  not 
disputed. 

The  so-called  First  Epistle  of  St.  Clement  to  the 
Corinthians  is  probably  the  only  authentic  work 
of  his  that  has  come  down  to  us.  Written  towards 
the    close    of   the     reign     of     Domitian    (96-98 

1  This  opinion  is  probably  based  on  the  so-called  "  Clement- 
tine  "  literature,  and  is  now  regarded  as  unhistorical  by  prac- 
tically all  critics  (Bardenhewer  :  Patrol.,  pp.  25,  20  ;  Lightfoot : 
Ajp.  F.,  pt.  i.  vol.  i.  p.  66). 

^  Ep.  liii  ad  Gen.  n.  2. 

3  De  Schism.  Donat.  ii.  3. 

4  vii.  6. 

^  Adv.  H.  iii.  3,  n.  3. 
6  H.  E.  iii.  15,  n.  34. 
'  De  vir.  xv. 

8  Haer.  xxvii.  6. 

9  cjr.  Lightfoot :  vol.  ciL,  pp.  66,  200-345  ;  Diet,  de  Theol 
Cath.,  i.  xviii. 


124  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

A.D.)/  its  purpose  was  to  admonish  the  Chris- 
tians at  Corinth  who  had  revolted  against  their 
clergy. 

The  letter,  it  should  be  noted,  professes  to  be 
addressed  '  to  the  Church  of  God  which  sojoumeth 
at  Corinth,  by  the  Church  of  God  which  sojourneth 
at  Rome.'  The  name  of  Clement  does  not  appear 
in  the  text.  Practically  all  modern  critics,  how- 
ever,— following  the  unanimous  voice  of  tradi- 
tion^— agree  in  attributing  the  document  to  him. 

Substance  of  the  letter. —  The  Prima  Clementis 
opens  with  an  apology.  "  By  reason  of  the  sudden 
and  repeated  calamities  .  .  .  which  are  befalling 
us,"  it  runs,  "  we  consider  that  we  have  been 
somewhat  slow  to  pay  attention  to  the  matters  of 
dispute  which  have  arisen  among  you."  ^  The 
writer  then  proceeds  to  contrast  at  some  length  the 
present  deplorable  condition  of  the  Corinthian 
Church  with  her  glorious  past,  Avhen  her  members 
submitted  themselves  to  their  rulers  {toI<s  '^yovfiivoi?) 
and  when  every  sedition  (arda-i^)  and  every  schism 
(crxto-fxa)  was  abominable  to  them.* 

Clement  admonishes  the  evil-doers,^  and  exhorts 
them  to  do  penance.  "  We  should  be  obedient 
unto  God,"  he  writes,  "  rather  than  follow  those 


1  Heg.  apud  Eus.  :  H.  E.  iii.  16  ;  iv.  22  ;  Barden.  :  op.  cit., 
p.  27.     Lightfoot :  vol.  cit.,  p.  342. 

2  c/r.  Eus.  :  H.  E.  iii.  38  ;  Jer.:  De  vir.  xv.  ;  Barden.  :  op.  cit., 
p.  27  ;  Lightfoot :  vol.  cit.,  pp.  361  sqq. 

^  c.  i.  *  cc.  ii.  sqq.  *  c.  vii. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  125 

who  in  arrogance  and  unruliness  have  set  them- 
selves up  as  leaders  in  abominable  jealousy."  ^ 
Examples  of  subjection  to  authority  are  not  far 
to  seek.  The  material  universe  observes  the 
divine  law.  The  heavens  are  moved  by  God's 
direction,  and  obey  Him.  The  sun,  the  moon,  and 
the  dancing  stars  move  in  harmony  within  the 
bounds  assigned  to  them,  without  any  "  swerving 
aside.  "  ^  j^  the  army  each  man  obeys  his  superior 
officer.  "  Therein  is  utility."  ^  In  the  living  body 
members  conspire  and  unite  "  in  subjection  "  to 
promote  the  well-being  of  the  whole.*  Christians 
should  take  pattern  by  these,  enlisting  themselves 
with  earnestness  in  God's  faultless  ordinances  ;  * 
.  .  .  for  "  while  they  follow  the  institutions  of  the 
Master  they  cannot  go  wrong."  ®  They  should 
reverence  their  ecclesiastical  superiors  and  be 
subject  to  them.' 

The  hierarchy  is  of  divine  institution.  It  was 
so  under  the  old  dispensation.  "  The  offerings  and 
ministrations  God  commanded  to  be  performed 
with  care,  and  at  fixed  times  and  seasons.  And 
where,  and  by  whom,  He  would  have  them  per- 
formed He  Himself  determined  by  His  Supreme 
will.  Unto  the  high-priest  his  proper  functions 
were  assigned,  and  to  the  priests  their  proper  office 


1  c,  xiv. 

4  ib. 

2   C.  XX. 

5  ib. 

^  c.  XXX vii. 

6   C.  Xl. 

'  c.  xxi. 


126  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

was  appointed  .  .  .  The  layman  was  bound  by 
the  layman's  ordinances.  No  one  was  at  liberty  to 
act  contrary  to  these  ordinances."  ^ 

The  principle  of  apostolic  succession  is  clearly 
enunciated  by  Clement.  Bishops  rule  by  right 
divine.  They  are  from  the  apostles :  the  apostles 
are  from  Christ:  Christ  is  from  God.  "The 
apostles  preaching  everywhere,  in  country  and 
town,  appointed  their  first-fruits  ...  to  be 
bishops  and  deacons  unto  them  that  should 
believe."  ^  Further,  they  provided  a  continuance 
that  if  these  should  fall  asleep  other  approved  men 
should  succeed  to  their  ministration.  Bishops  hold 
office  in  virtue  of  appointment  coming,  not  from 
the  faithful,  but  from  the  apostles  and  through 
them  from  Christ.    The  bishop's  office  is  for  life.^ 

Christians  form  together  one  body  of  Christ. 
Schism  is  inexcusable :  "  Wherefore  are  there 
strifes  and  wraths  and  factions  and  divisions  and 
war  among  you  ?  .  .  .  Wherefore  do  we  tear 
and  rend  asunder  the  members  of  Christ  .  .  .  and 
reach  such  a  pitch  of  folly,  as  to  forget  that  we  are 
members  one  of  another."  ^  Schism  is  so  great  an 
evil  that  individuaJs  should  be  prepared  to  make 
any  personal  sacrifice,  however  great,  that  the 
Church  may  be  saved  from  it,  and  "  that  the  flock 
of  Christ  may  be  at  peace  with  its  duly  appointed 


^  c,  xl.  3  c.  xliv. 

^  c.  xlii.  *  c.  xlvi. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  127 

pastors."  ^  The  revolt  against  the  clergy  at 
Corinth  was  gravely  smful.  All  who  took  part  in 
it,  including  "  those  who  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
dissension,"  must  submit  themselves  to  the  deposed 
presbyters  and  obtain  forgiveness,  "  receiving 
chastisement  unto  repentance." ;2  Submission  to 
the  established  hierarchy  is  necessary  for  salvation. 

The  letter  concludes  with  an  admonition :  "If 
you  receive  our  counsel,"  it  runs,  "  you  shall  have 
no  occasion  of  regret.  •"*  .  .  .  But  if  certain  persons 
should  be  disobedient  unto  the  words  spoken  by 
Christ  through  us,  let  them  understand  that  they 
will  entangle  themselves  in  no  slight  transgression 
and  danger ;  but  we  will  be  guiltless  of  this  sin.* 
.  .  .  Therefore  it  is  right  for  us  to  submit  the 
neck,  and  occupying  the  place  of  obedience,  to 
take  the  side  of  them  that  are  the  leaders  of  our 
souls,  that,  ceasing  from  this  foolish  dissension, 
we  may  attain  unto  the  goal.  For  ye  will  give  us 
great  joy  and  gladness  if  ye  render  obedience  unto 
the  things  written  by  us  through  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  root  out  the  unrighteous  anger  of  your  jealousy 
according  to  the  entreaty  which  we  have  made  for 
peace  and  concord  in  this  letter."  ^ 

Ecclesiology. — The  purpose  of  the  Prima 
dementis  is  to  condemn  anarchy  in  the  Church. 
The  hierarchy  is  of  divine  institution  ;  ecclesiastical 

^  c.  liv.  ^  c.  Iviii. 

^  cc.  xlviii-lvii.  *  c.  lix. 

s  c.  Ixiii. 


128  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

rulers  are  appointed  to  office,  not  by  their  flocks, 
but  by  Christ  Himself  through  the  apostles  and 
their  successors.  The  faithful  cannot  depose 
rulers  who  are  true  to  their  trust.  They  are 
obliged  to  obey  them  as  soldiers  obey  their  officers. 
To  withhold  obedience  is  to  oppose  the  Master's 
own  ordmances.  The  local  church  is  a  visible 
society. 

There  is  also  a  Church  of  churches.  Christians 
are  soldiers  of  one  army,  members  of  one  body.^ 
They  have  one  God  and  one  Christ  and  one  Spirit 
of  grace  and  one  calling  (KXijaig)  in  Christ.^      One 

calling,   one   church  :    fxla  KXija-ig,  /ula  eKKXrjcrla. 

"  The  '  Prima  dementis,'  "  writes  Batiffol,  "  is 
the  epiphany  of  the  Roman  primacy."  ^  This  is 
now  practically  admitted  by  the  critics.  "It  is 
easy  to  prove,"  says  Hamack,  "  that  even  in  the 
first  letter  of  Clement  there  is  a  very  big  dose  of 
Roman  Catholicism."  ^  The  circumstances  in 
which  the  letter  A\'as  penned  are  noteworthy.  The 
first  century  had  not  yet  come  to  a  close.  St.  John 
was  still  alive  and  bishop  of  Ephesus.  Rome  was 
separated  from  Corinth  by  some  six  or  seven 
hundred  miles,  Ephesus  by  scarce  one-third  that 
distance.  Between  Corinth  and  Ephesus,  moreover, 
there  existed  great  facilities  of  communication. 
The  Prima  Clementis  is  thus  a  de  facto  witness  to 
the  Roman  primacy.    If  Rome  was  the  recognized 

1  c.  xxxvii.  ^  op.  cit.,  p.  123. 

2  c.  xlvi.  4  Tkeol  Lit.,  Jan.  16,  1909. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  129 

mistress  of  Christendom  ;  if  Clement  was  burdened 
with  the  care  of  all  the  churches,  his  action  in  the 
circumstances,  and  the  equally  remarkable  inaction 
of  St.  John,  become  perfectly  intelligible.  In  any 
other  hypothesis  the  incident  involves  a  mystery. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  deposed  presbyters 
had  appealed  to  Clement  for  redress ;  but  then, 
why  should  they  have  appealed  to  the  distant 
bishop  of  Rome,  and  not  rather  to  the  apostle- 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  to  whom  access  could  have 
been  had  so  easily  ?  We  may  remark  further  that 
modern  exegetes  do  not  favour  the  view  that  the 
Prima  Clementis  was  written  at  the  instance  of 
the  Corinthian  clergy. ^  Clement's  intervention  in 
the  case  seems  to  have  been  quite  spontaneous. 

Professor  Sohm  has  succeeded  in  grasping  the 
ecclesiology  of  St.  Clement,  but  to  little  purpose. 
The  Prima  Clementis,  he  admits,  gives  expression 
to  the  doctrine  of  Roman  Catholicism  ^  ;  but  the 
doctrine  was  then  quite  new.  The  Church  from  its 
inception  until  the  closing  years  of  the  first  century 
was  an  '  anarchical '  kingdom,  governed  exclu- 
sively by  Love  and  by  charismatical  manifestations 

1  The  hypothesis  that  the  Corinthians  solicited  Clement's 
intervention  is  regarded  by  Bardenhewer  as  incompatible  with 
certain  passages  in  the  letter  {cfr.  op.  cit.,  p.  27). 

2  A  startling  admission  by  one  of  the  ablest  Protestant 
controversialists  of  our  time.  By  the  doctrine  of  Catholicism 
he  means  the  doctrine  which  teaches  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
is,  by  divine  law,  a  visible  society  governed  by  the  bishops 
and  by  the  pope  {cfr.  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  pp.  130,  131). 


130  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

of  the  Spirit.  It  was  only  when  the  decline  of  faith 
and  of  Christian  charity  made  government  by 
visible  authority  a  practical  necessity  that  Clement 
ushered  in  Roman  Catholicism! 

Bishop  Lightfoot,  on  the  contrary,  finds  in  the 
Letter  no  evidence  to  support  the  Roman,  still 
less  the  papal  claims.  Clement's  intervention  in 
the  case,  he  admits,  was  a  step  towards  papal 
domination,  but  the  language  of  the  document  is 
inconsistent  with  the  possession  of  papal  authority 
by  the  writer.  Clement,  he  asserts,  acted  merely 
as  spokesman  of  the  Roman  Church.  Hence  were 
we  even  to  admit  that  the  tone  of  the  letter  is 
authoritative,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  implied 
authority  was  vested  in  the  writer,  but  rather  in 
the  Church  for  which  he  spoke.  But  the  language 
and  tone  of  the  Epistle  are  not  really  authoritative. 
The  Prima  dementis  is  nothing  more  than  "  a 
dignified  remonstrance  in  which  the  Romans  as  a 
community  deal  with  the  Corinthians  on  terms  of 
equality,  strong  only  in  the  righteousness  of  their 
cause  and  feeling,  as  they  had  a  right  to  feel,  that 
these  counsels  of  peace  were  the  dictation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  i 

As  our  work  is  not  a  formal  defence  of  the 
papacy,  we  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  deal  at  any 
length  with  the  first  part  of  the  argument.  We 
may  remark,  however,  that  if  the  Prima  dementis 

1  Ap.  F.,  vol  cit.y  pp.  69  sqq. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  131 

implies  the  possession  of  a  certain  authority  by  the 
Roman  Church,  it  affords  a  very  fair  argument 
indeed  for  the  view  that  the  authority  in  question 
was  vested  in  the  writer.  Clement,  as  Lightfoot 
himself  strongly  argues, ^  was  monarchical  bishop 
of  Rome. 

'  In  the  Clementine  Epistle,'  we  are  told,  '  the 
Romans  remonstrate  with  the  Corinthians  on  terms 
of  equality.'  We  have  failed  to  discover  in  the 
document  itself  any  grounds  for  this  assertion.  The 
writer  does  not  merely  advise  ;  he  commands.  He 
holds  the  place  of  God.  Those  who  disobey  him 
disobey  Christ,  and  sin  mortally.  ^  The  evil-doers 
are  bound  to  render  obedience  to  the  things  spoken 
by  him  through  the  Holy  Spirit.^  His  intervention 
was  not  a  work  of  supererogation.  No  ;  it  was  a 
duty  incumbent  upon  him.  He  is  careful  to  account 
for  his  delay  in  taking  action.^  Having  fulfilled 
his  obligations  in  their  regard,  his  conscience  will 
be  at  peace,  although  his  efforts  to  quell  the  revolt 
may  prove  ineffectual.^  Is  this  the  language  of 
equality  ?  Lightfoot  himself  seems  to  be  conscious 
of  the  weakness  of  his  position  here.    The  tone  of 


^  Ap.  F.,  pp.  67  sqq. 

2  c.  lix. 

^  cc.  lix,  Ixiii. 


4 


c.  1. 


^  c.  lix.  It  is  history  that  his  efiforts  were  not  ineffectual, 
and  that  the  claim  to  sovereignty  implicitly  made  by  him  was 
acquiesced  in  by  those  against  whom  it  was  made. 


132  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

the  letter,  he  admits,  is  "  urgent  and  almost  im- 
perious/^^   What  is  the  meaning  of  this?^ 

The  '  ahnost  imperious '  tone  he  tries  to  explain 
by  stating  that  the  Romans,  in  remonstrating  with 
the  Corinthians,  "  were  strong  only  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  their  cause,  feeling,  as  they  had  a  right  to 
feel,  that  these  counsels  of  peace  were  the  dictation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit."  To  describe  the  Roman 
instructions  as  counsels  is  to  speak  inaccurately. 
There  is  question,  not  of  counsels,  but  of  strict 
precepts.  The  Prima  dementis  speaks  of  obedience 
and  disobedience.  2  We  obey  precepts ;  counsels 
we  merely  follow. 

As  to  the  explanation  offered,  the  Roman  Church 
was  no  doubt  conscious  of  the  justice  of  her  cause, 
conscious,  too,  that  her  intervention  was  divinely 
sanctioned.  But  surely  this  does  not  suffice  to 
explain  the  authoritative  tone  of  the  Prima 
dementis.  How  does  Lightfoot's  explanation 
square  with  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Letter 
itself  ?  Clement  teaches — and  this  is  his  primordial 
principle — that  Christians  owe  obedience  to  eccle- 
siastical superiors  because  these  constitute  a  hierarchy 
established  by  Christ.  To  resist  them  is  to  disobey 
the  Master.    What  then  are  we  to  infer  when  we 


1  Dr.  Lindsay  describes  the  contents  of  the  Prima  Clementis 
as  "  calm  injunctions  issued  in  measured  language  "  {op.  cit., 
p.  193). 

^  Gr.  iav  8k  TLves  dTTfi^rycrcoo-tv  .   .   .   edv  vTr-qKOOi  yevoyucvot  .   . 

(cc,  lix,  Ixiii), 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  133 

find  the  same  letter  stating  that  the  mischief- 
makers  at  Corinth  are  bound  under  pain  of  grave 
sin  to  obey  the  precepts  imposed  upon  them  by 
the  Church  of  Rome  ?  Is  it  not  implied  that  the 
precepts  in  question  are  imposed  by  virtue  of 
authority  received  from  Christ  ?  Finally,  Light- 
foot  has  not  explained  why  the  "  dignified  remon- 
strance "  came  from  the  distant  Church  of  Rome, 
and  not  rather  from  the  neighbouring  Church  of 
Ephesus,  which,  he  holds,  became  the  head- 
quarters of  Christendom  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  1  and  which  was  at  this  time  ruled  by 
the  apostle  John. 

Advocates  of  democratic  theories  of  church 
government  labour  much  to  give  a  '  popular ' 
interpretation  to  certain  passages  of  the  Prima 
dementis.  "  The  one  thought  running  through 
all  the  earlier  documents,"  writes  Dr.  Lindsay, 
"  is  that  the  poM  er  to  render  special  service  to  the 
community  .  .  .  depends  on  the  possession  of 
'  gifts '  engrafted  by  the  Spirit  on  uidividual 
character ;  and  the  occasion  of  these  particular 
services  is  their  recognition  by  the  community 
who  appoint  the  brethren  to  serve  it  in  ruling  it.  .  . 
The  function  of  the  missionary  or  his  deputy  .  .  . 
was  to  advise  the  community  iu  their  selection  of 
those  who  were  to  be  over  them  and  to  inculcate 
such  principles  of  selection  as  would  abide  per- 
manently in  their  minds  and  secure  a  succession 

1  Ap.  F.,  pt.  ii,  vol.  i,  p.  438. 


134  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

of  worthy  office-bearers  when  the  first  missionaries 
were  no  longer  present  to  advise ;  or  to  use  the 
words  of  St.  Clement :  '  Our  Apostles  knew 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  there  would 
be  strife  over  the  name  (dignity)  of  the  overseer's 
office ;  for  this  cause,  therefore,  .  .  .  they 
appointed  the  aforesaid  persons  .  .  .  and  after- 
wards gave  a  further  injunction  that  if  they  should 
fall  asleep  other  approved  men  should  succeed  to 
their  administration.'  ^  ...  In  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Clement  we  find  that  the  Congregation  is  the 
supreme  authority."  ^  Dr.  Dale  writes  in  the  same 
strain  :  "  From  the  Epistle  of  Clement  it  is  clear," 
he  argues,  "  that  in  apostolic  times  the  whole 
Church  not  only  concurred  in  the  appointment  of 
its  elders  but  had  the  power  to  depose  them."  ^ 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  anything  more 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  principles  of  St. 
Clement  than  a  "  popular "  theory  of  church 
government.  For  him  the  principle  of  apostolic 
succession  rules  everywhere.  "  The  apostles,"  he 
writes,  "  received  the  Gospel  for  us  from  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  Jesus  Christ  was  sent  forth  from 
God.  So  then,  Christ  is  from  God,  and  the  apostles 
are  from  Christ.  Both,  therefore,  came  of  the  will 
of  God  in  the  appointed  order.  Having  thus 
received  a  charge  .  .  .  the  apostles  went  forth 
bearing  the  glad  tidings.     ...     So  preaching 

1  op.  ciL,  pp.  151,  152.  2  if,  ^  p   176  n. 

^  ib.,  p.  55. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  135 

everywhere  in  country  and  town  they  appointed 
their  first-fruits  .  .  .  to  be  bishops  and  deacons 
unto  them  that  should  believe.  ^  .  .  .  Having 
appointed  the  aforesaid  persons  they  afterwards 
provided  a  continuance  that  if  these  should  fall 
asleep  other  approved  men  should  succeed  to  their 
ministration.  Those,  therefore,  who  were  ap- 
pointed by  them,  or  afterwards  by  other  men  of 
repute  with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church,  and 
have  ministered  blamelessly  ...  we  consider  to 
be  unjustly  thrust  out  from  their  ministration."  ^ 
Could  the  principle  of  apostolic  succession  be 
more  clearly  inculcated  ?  Office-bearers  are  elected 
by  the  people,  but  appointment  comes  from  Christ 
Himself  through  the  apostles  or  "  other  men  of 
repute."  Clement  seems  to  imply  that  those  who 
do  not  minister  blamelessly  may  be  justly  thrust 
out ;  but  by  whom  ?  Manifestly  by  those  who 
appointed  them.  If  the  commonalty  did  not 
appoint,  the  commonalty  cannot  depose.  If 
"  Clement  of  Rome  is  a  good  authority  for  the  fact 
that  about  thirty  years  after  Paul's  death  the 
Church  at  Corinth  claimed  and  exercised  the  power 
to  depose  its  presbyters,"  ^  he  is  an  equally  good 
authority  for  the  fact  that  the  Church  in  the  case 
acted  ultra  vires. 

1  c.  xlii. 

2  c.  xliv, 

^  Dale  :  op.  cit.,  p.  40. 


136  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

The  Ignatian  Epistles 

What  we  know  of  the  personal  history  of  St. 
Ignatius  may  be  set  down  in  a  few  liaes.  He  was 
the  second,  or,  if  we  include  Peter,  the  third 
bishop  of  Antioch.i  During  a  persecution  which 
broke  out  under  Trajan,^  he  was  dragged  before 
the  provincial  magistrate  and  condemned  to  the 
wild  beasts.  On  his  way  to  Rome  to  have  the 
sentence  executed,  the  martyr-bishop  wrote  seven 
letters,  which  have  come  down  to  us.^  These  con- 
tain what  we  know  of  his  teaching.* 

^  Origen  :  Horn.  vi.  in  Lk.  ;  Eus.  H.  E.  iii,  22. 

2  98-117  A.D. 

^  The  authenticity  of  the  Seven  Letters  was  long  bitterly 
contested  by  Protestant  controversiahsts.  The  whole  of  the 
Ignatian  literature  they  brushed  aside  as  "  a  mass  of  falsifi- 
cation and  fraud."  "  We  assert,"  writes  the  author  of  Essays 
on  Supernatural  Religion,  "  that  none  of  the  Epistles  have  any 
value  as  evidence  for  an  earlier  period  than  the  end  of  the 
second  or  beginning  of  the  third  century,  even  if  they  possess 
any  value  at  all.  .  .  .  The  martyr- journey  of  Ignatius  to 
Rome  is,  for  cogent  reasons,  declared  to  be  wholly  fabulous, 
and  the  Epistles  purporting  to  be  written  during  that  journey 
must  be  held  to  be  spurious  "  [cfr.  Lightfoot :  Essays  on 
Supernatural  Religion  (pp.  62,  63)].  But  the  controversy  may 
now  be  regarded  as  closed.  Practically  all  modem  scholars, 
including  Bardenhewer,  Zahn,  Lightfoot,  Hamack  and  Ritschl, 
admit  that  the  letters  are  genuine.  The  entire  evidence  for 
their  authenticity  is  set  forth  in  scholarly  fashion  by  Lightfoot 
(Ap.  F.,  pt.  ii,  vol.  i,  pp.  328-430  ;  cfr.  Essays  on  Supernatural 
Religion ;  Barden.  :  Patr.,  pp.  34,  35). 

4  cfr.  Lightfoot :  Ap.  F.,  pt.  ii,  vol.  i,  pp.  28-30  ;  vol.  ii, 
pp.  448  sqq. ;  Barden.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  30 ;  Schmid-Schobel : 
Patr.,  p.  79.  The  date  usually  assigned  to  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Ignatius  is  107  A.D. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  137 

The  Local  Church. — For  Ignatius  Christians  of  a 
district  or  city  form  together  a  single  association. 
Control  is  by  a  resident  hierarchy  consisting  of  a 
monarchical  bishop  (supreme),  a  college  of  priests 
and  deacons.  Without  these  three  there  is  no 
Church.^  Submission  to  the  bishop  is  necessary  for 
salvation.  He  holds  the  place  of  God.^  It  is  only 
those  who  are  with  the  bishop  that  are  of  God  and 
of  Christ  Jesus.  ^  The  unity  of  the  Church  is  a 
unity  of  flesh  (through  authority)  and  of  spirit 
(through  grace).*  Members  symbolize  their  union 
by  "  breaking  one  bread."  ^ 

When  Ignatius  wrote,  the  Asiatic  churches  were 
threatened  with  two  forms  of  heresy.  One — 
Docetism — denied  the  reality  of  the  Sacred 
Humanity ;  the  other  was  Judaism.^  The  Saint 
admonishes  Christians  to  guard  themselves 
against  irepoSo^la. '  In  matters  of  belief,  he 
urges,  we  cannot  be  too  wary.  False  teachers  are 
mad  dogs  that  bite  by  stealth ;  their  bite  is  hard 
to  heal.®  The  hierarchy  is  our  safeguard.  The 
bishop  is  the  Christian's  tower  of  strength  against 

1  Xwpts  TOVTUiV  kKKXtp^la.  ov  KoAetTai  (Trail,  iil.) 

2  ib.  iv  ;  Smym.  ix. 

3  Phil.  iii. 

*  Magn.  i,  xiii. 

5  Phil.  iv. 

«  cfr.  Eph.  ix,  xv  ;  Magn.  x,  xi ;  cfr.  Trail,  vi,  xi ;  Phil,  vi ; 
Smym.  v-vii.  Bardenhewer  and  others  think  there  is  question 
of  one  sect  only, — Judaising  Gnostics. 

'  Magn.  viii.  *  Eph.  vii. 


138  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

heresy.  Episcopal  sanction  is  the  hall-mark  of 
orthodoxy.  1 

The  exercise  of  the  hierarchical  magisterium 
enables  the  Church  to  purge  out  effectively  all 
extraneous  doctrines.  "  Heterodox  "  teachers  and 
their  followers — i.e.,  for  Ignatius  all  who  are  not 
"  with  the  bishop  " — are  vitandi.  Heresy  is  some- 
thing intrusive ;  it  is  strange  fodder  {aXXorpia 
^oTcivri).^  Those  who  partake  of  it  become  differ- 
entiated from  those  who,  remaining  united  to  the 
bishop,  are  nourished  only  by  what  is  genuine  and 
Christian.^    Heresy  is  separative. 

Protestant  exegetes  refuse  to  recognize  in 
Ignatius  a  witness  to  "  episcopacy."  "It  is 
pathetic,"  writes  Dr.  Lindsay,  "  to  see  the  fiery 
impassioned  words  of  the  martyr  used  as  missiles 
by  reckless  preachers  of  episcopal  supremacy.  .  .  . 
His  writings  are  a  proof  that  the  threefold  ministry 
in  some  form  or  other  did  exist,  early  in  the  second 
century,  in  some  parts  of  the  Church,  though  not 
in  others.  .  .  .  Further,  the  bishop  is  not  an 
autocrat.  .  .  .  He  is  helpless  without  his  council 
of  presbyters.   ..."  * 

^  The  written  word  as  a  rule  of  faith  Ignatius  refers  to,  but 
does  not  discuss.  He  impUes  its  insufficiency  however 
(Phil,  viii,  cfr.  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  pp.  136,  137). 

2  Trail,  vi. 

^  ...  fiovy  Trj  ^puTTiavQ  Tpoffjrj  -^prjcrdi,  dXXoTpias  8e 
y8oTavr^s  (XTrexecrde  ^tls  eo-rlv  atpecns     .     .     .     {ib.) 

*  Lindsay  :  op.  cit.,  pp.  194  sqq.  ;  Lightfoot :  SS.  Ign.  and 
Polyc.  i.,  p.  382. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  139 

That  Ignatius  represents  the  Church  as  owing 
obedience  to  a  threefold  hierarchy  is  true.  All 
three  orders  form  a  corporate  whole  to  which  the 
faithful  are  subject.  But  it  is  no  less  true  that 
supreme  control  vests  in  the  bishop.  He  is  a  rally- 
ing centre  for  the  entire  community.  He  holds 
the  place  of  God  the  Father  ;  ^  and  even  the  priests 
owe  him  reverence  and  obedience.  Writing  to  the 
Ephesians  the  saint  tells  them  that  their  "  famous 
presbyterium  is  attached  to  the  bishop  as  the  chords 
to  the  lyre  ;  "  ^  and  to  the  Magnesians :  "It  does 
not  become  you  to  use  your  bishop  too  familiarly 
on  account  of  his  youth  ;  but  rather  in  consideration 
of  the  power  of  God  the  Father  to  pay  him  all 
reverence,  as  I  heard  that  the  holy  presbyters  do ; 
for  they  do  not  take  advantage  of  his  youth  in  this 
high  position ;  but  being  prudent  in  God  they 
submit  to  him.   .    .   ."  ^ 

To  say  that  Ignatius  witnesses  to  the  existence 
of  the  threefold  ministry  in  some  parts  of  the 
Church  though  not  in  others  is  to  misstate  his 
testimony.  We  grant  that  Poly  carp's  letter  to  the 
Philippians  about  the  same  time  contains  no 
reference  to   a  monarchical  bishop,   and   merely 

1  Magn.  vi ;  Trail,  iii ;  Smyrn.  viii. 

2  Eph.  iv. 

^  Magn.  iii.  cfr.  Smyrn.  viii,  where  we  read  :  "  Let  that 
Eucharist  be  regarded  as  ^ge^ata  which  is  offered  by  the  bishop 
or  by  him  to  whom  he  has  given  his  consent.  ...  It  is  not 
lawful  without  the  bishop  either  to  baptize  or  to  celebrate  the 
aydTT-q.    Whatsoever  he  approves,  that  is  also  pleasing  to  God." 


140  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

enjoins  submission  to  the  presbyters  and  deacons. 
But  even  though  his  silence  in  the  case  justified  us 
in  inferring  that  the  Philippians  were  then  ruled 
by  a  college  of  presbyters,  it  would  not  follow 
that  the  Ignatian  Epistles  testify  to  the  existence 
of  a  monarchical  episcopate  in  some  parts  of  the 
Church  and  not  in  others.  No ;  Ignatius  witnesses 
to  episcopacy  supreme  and  universal.  If  there 
existed  churches  with  a  different  polity  he  was  not 
aware  of  it.  "  Without  these  three,"  he  says 
"  (bishop,  priests  and  deacons)  there  is  no 
Church." 

The  Church  Universal. — Like  Clement  of  Rome, 
Ignatius  seems  to  have  drawn  his  ecclesiology 
bodily  from  the  Pauline  letters.  The  Church  is 
Catholic,  1  and  a  visible  organic  unit.  All  who 
embrace  Christianity  are  gathered  together  unto 
God.  2  They  are  building-stones  erected  into  the 
same  edifice, ^  soldiers  of  the  same  army,*  members 
of  the  same  body.^  "  Christ  was  truly  crucified," 
he  writes,  "  that  He  might  set  up  a  standard  unto 
all  the  ages,  through  the  resurrection  of  His  saints 
and  faithful  people,  whether  among  Jews  or  among 
Gentiles,  in  one  body  of  His  Church^  ^ 

Isolated  or  solitary  communities  do  not  lie 
within  the  horizon  of  St.  Ignatius.    For  him  there 

^  The  expression  i)  KadoXtKrj  iKKXrja-ia  is  found  for  the  first 
time  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles  (Smyrn.  viii). 
2  Magn.  X.  4  Polyc.  vi.  ^  Smyrn.  i 

^  Eph.  ix.  5  Ep]j  jy 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  141 

is  a  community  of  communities.  A  spirit  of 
fraternal  charity  is  everywhere  in  evidence.  Inter- 
ecclesiastical  communication  is  general ;  churches 
exchange  greetings ;  letters  and  messengers  pass 
freely  to  and  fro  ;  travelling  brethren  are  enter- 
tained and  escorted  from  church  to  church.  In 
these  and  a  hundred  other  ways  the  love  of  the 
brethren  was  externalized.  "  Christianity,  a  league 
of  brothers,"  was  no  mere  ideal ;  it  was  an  accom- 
plished fact  in  the  time  of  St.  Ignatius. 

But  more  than  this.  The  dispersed  communities 
acknowledged  a  common  flag.  Christianity  was 
an  authoritative  Kavcov  to  which  the  faithful  every- 
where were  expected  to  conform.  They  ran 
together  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of  God  ;  the 
Gospel  was  the  same  for  all.  But  how  was  general 
agreement  in  doctrine  and  discipline  to  be  secured 
and  maintained  among  so  many  ?  Let  us  hear 
Ignatius:  "The  faithful  in  each  church,"  he 
writes,  "  should  run  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of 
the  bishop."  This,  he  implies,  will  secure  general 
harmony  among  the  faithful  everywhere,  "  because 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  mind  of  the  Father  and  the 
bishops  that  are  settled  in  the  farthest  parts  of  the 
earth  are  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ."  ^  We  need 
not  elaborate.  No  one  claims  that  bishops  are 
individually  infallible — still  less  inspired.     There 

1  Eph.  iii,  iv.  The  doctrinal  infallibility  of  the  Church 
is  clearly  implied  in  this  passage.  It  is  elsewhere  explicitly 
referred  to  {cfr.  ib.  XVii.   .     .     .    tva  ffve?/  rrj  iKKXrjo-ia  af^dafxrlav). 


142  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

is,  therefore,  an  episcopal  body  corporate  whose 
utterances  represent  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  to 
which  individual  bishops,  and,  through  them,  the 
faithful  everywhere  must  keep  attuned.  The 
Church  has  a  central  magisterium. 

Schism. — St.  Ignatius  teaches  that  schism  is 
absolutely  sinful.  To  divide  the  Church  is  to  divide 
the  body  of  Christ.  ^  Heresy  and  schism  go  hand 
in  hand  ;  they  are  equally  indefensible.  "  As 
children  of  truth,"  he  writes,  "  shun  division  and 
wrong  doctrines ;  where  the  shepherd  is,  there 
follow  ye  as  sheep."  ^  The  shepherd  is  the 
monarchical  bishop,  the  authoritative  exponent  of 
the  Christian  teaching.  Against  the  attacks 
of  heresy  he  must  stand  "  firm  as  an  anvil 
when  it  is  smitten."  ^  The  faithful  must  cleave 
to  him.  "  Wheresoever  the  bishop  shall  appear 
there  let  the  people  also  be  ;  as  where  Jesus  Christ 
is  there  is  the  Catholic  Church."  * 

Heretics  and  schismatics  are  excommunicated.^ 
They  are  separatists  to  their  own  destruction.  In 
breaking  with  the  established  hierarchy  they  break 
with  God  and  with  Jesus  Christ.  To  be  saved  they 
must  "  repent  and  enter  into  the  unity  of  the 
Church.''^  ^    Extra  ecclesiam  nulla  solus. "^ 

With  heresy  and  schism  there  can  be  no  com- 

1  Eph.  iv.  ^  Smyrn.  viii. 

2  Phil.  ii.  «  ib.  iv. 

^  Polyc.  iii.  ^  Phil.  iii. 

'  cfr.  Eph.  V,  xiii,  xx  ;  Magn.  vii. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  143 

promise,  they  are  utterly  wrong.  "  Unity  though 
the  heavens  should  fall "  is  the  principle  on  which 
Ignatius  rmgs  the  changes.  "  Be  not  deceived  my 
brethren,"  he  writes ;  "  if  any  one  follow  eth  one 
that  maketh  a  schism  he  doth  not  inherit  the 
Kingdom  of  God."  ^  To  the  Philadelphians  he  had 
proclaimed  with  God's  own  voice  that  all  must 
subject  themselves  to  the  established  hierarchy: 
"  It  was  the  preaching  of  the  Spirit,"  he  adds 
"  who  spoke  thus :  '  Cherish  union  ;  avoid  schism 
.  .  .  where  there  is  division  .  .  .  there  God 
abideth  not.'  "  2 

The  Roman  Primacy  — The  letter  addressed  by 
Ignatius  to  the  Church  '  which  had  as  her  teachers 
the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul '  ^  opens  with  the 
following  passage  :  "Ignatius  .  .  .  unto  her  that 
hath  found  mercy  in  the  bountifulness  of  the 
Father  Most  High  and  of  Jesus  Christ  His  only 
Son  ;  to  the  Church  that  is  beloved  and  enlightened 
through  the  will  of  Him  who  wiUed  all  things  that 
are,  by  faith  and  love  towards  Jesus  Christ  our 
God  ;  even  unto  her  that  hath  the  presidency  in 
the  place  of  the  region  of  the  Romans,  being  worthy 
of  God,  worthy  of  honour,  worthy  of  felicitation, 


1  Phil.  iii. 

-  ih.  vii,  viii. 

^  Rom.  iv.  Although  the  Roman  Church  was  founded  by 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  the  latter  was  never  Bishop  of  Rome. 
All  the  early  authorities  speak  of  the  Roman  bishops  as  being 
successors  not  of  Peter  and  Paul,  but  of  Peter  alone. 


144  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

worthy  of  praise,  worthy  of  success,  worthy  in 
purity,  and  having  the  presidency  of  love,  walking 
in  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  which  Church 
also  I  salute  in  His  Name."  ^ 

Anyone  who  compares  this  magnificent  exordium 
with  the  inscriptions  of  the  other  Ignatian  epistles 
will  grant  without  difficulty  that  the  Roman  Church 
is  here  pre-eminently  honoured.  But  what  is  the 
precise  character  of  the  pre-eminence  ?  Is  it 
authoritative  or  merely  honorary  ?  It  is  a  question 
more  readily  put  than  answered ;  but  some  of  the 
ablest  exegetes  contend  that  Ignatius  here  ascribes 
to  the  Roman  Church  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction. 
We  shall  conclude  our  discussion  of  his  letters  by 
briefly  examining  the  grounds  for  this  contention. 

The  Church  of  Rome  "  presides  in  the  place  of 
the  region  of  the  Romans."  '^  This  peculiarly- 
worded  statement  has  been  variously  explained. 
Many  Catholic  scholars  find  in  it  a  reference  to  a 
universal  presidency,  understanding  totto?  x^p^"^ 
'Puifiaim  of  the  Roman  Empire.  This  interpreta- 
tion, although  it  has  been  ably  defended,  I  consider 

1  Rom.  exonl. 

Gr.     TrpoKoidrjTai,    ev    tott^j)     yuypiov    'Viofiaiuyv.  Tertullian 

{De  Prcescr.  36)  speaks  of  each  apostolic  church  as  presiding 
in  its  own  place  (  .  .  .  cathedrce  apostolorum  siiis  locis  prcesi- 
dent).  Durell  {The  Historic  Church,  p.  39,  n.  2),  following 
Lightfoot,  argues  that  the  presidency  ascribed  by  Ignatius  to 
the  Roman  Church  implies  nothing  more.  The  objection  is 
forcible,  but  the  reader  should  take  care  to  hear  the  other  side 
before  rejecting  the  Cathohc  interpretation. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  145 

far-fetched.  A  more  satisfactory  rendering  is 
suggested  by  Batiffol.  The  presidency  in  question 
is,  he  holds,  universal,  but  the  words  iv  ronrm  x(^ptoi 
'PoDfiaioDv  mean  '  at  Rome '  simply.  The  verb 
TrpoKaOtjTai  he  construes  absolutely:  "  The  Roman 
Church  presides,  and  it  presides  at  Rome."  If  this 
be  the  true  interpretation  the  words  eV  tottw  x<^p^ou  'P. 
localize  the  presidency,  rather  than  define  the 
limits  over  which  it  extends. 

Lightfoot  and  Protestant  commentators  gener- 
ally understand  the  words  iv  to-kw  x'P-  as  indicating 
the  range  of  the  presidency  :  The  Church  of  Rome 
presides  in  the  country  of  the  Romans,  as  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  might  have  been  said  to 
preside  in  Palestine.  She  was  the  principal  Church 
in  the  Roman  area.  Her  jurisdiction  would  have 
been  somewhat  akin  to  that  exercised  by  a  metro- 
politan see  in  our  time. 

But  if  this  be  the  Saint's  meaning,  does  it  not 
seem  strange  that  his  letter  to  the  Metropolitan 
Church  of  Ephesus,  contains  no  reference  to  a 
presidency  in  '  the  place  of  the  region  of  the 
Asiatics.'  ?  Further  let  us  not  forget  that  some  ten 
to  twenty  years  before  this  epistle  was  penned,  the 
Roman  Church  de  facto  "  presided  "  over  churches 
situated  well  outside  "  the  region  of  the  Romans." 
Ignatius  must  have  known  of  the  "  Prima 
dementis "  ;  he  knew  the  past  of  the  Roman 
Church :  "  You  have  never  deceived  anyone," 
he  writes.    "  You  have  taught  others."    Now  if  it 


146  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

be  true,  as  Lightfoot  himself  supposes/  that  the 
Saint  had  here  in  mind  the  Prima  dementis, — ^not 
to  speak  of  other  similar  documents  which  may 
have  been  extant  in  his  time  and  have  since 
perished — is  it  at  all  likely  that,  in  addressing  and 
magnifying  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  should  have 
limited  the  range  of  her  presidency  to  the  x^P^<^^ 
'Pddij.alwv'i     We  find  it  difficult  to  think  so. 

The  presidency  of  the  Roman  Church  is  a 
presidency  of  love.^  "  This,  then,"  writes  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  "  was  the  original  primacy  of  Rome — 
a  primacy  not  of  the  bishop  but  of  the  whole 
Church,  a  primacy  not  of  official  authority,  but  of 
practical  goodness."  ^  Funk  on  the  other  hand 
argues,  with  considerable  force,  for  a  more  Catholic 
interpretation.  The  expression  nrpoKaOrjixivr)  rrj^ 
dyd-TTtjg,  he  contends,  cannot  be  understood  of  a 
presidency  or  pre-eminence  in  practical  goodness. 
The  verb  -TrpoKadrjixai  is  never  employed  except 
in  conjunction  with  the  name  of  a  place  or  of  a 
collectivity.  Hence  dydirri  here  as  elsewhere  in  the 
Ignatian  letters  *  denotes  not  the  virtue  of  charity 

1  Ap.  F.,  pt.  ii,  vol.  ii,  p.  203. 
Gr.  TrpoKadijixevrj  rrjs  dydir'qs. 

^  Ap.  F.,  pt.  i,  vol.  i,  p.  71. 

*  cfr.  Trail.  Xiii  :  do-yga^erat  vfias  r)  dydwT]  "^fivpvaiwv — 
"  The  dydirrj  of  the  Smyrnians  salutes  you,"  where  dydtrr) 
certainly  appears  to  be  synonymous  with  kKKX-qa-la  {cfr. 
Rom.  ix,  Phil,  xi,  Smyrn.  xii).  Lightfoot  translates  :  "  The 
love  of  the  Smyrnians  salutes  you  ;  "  but  the  form  of  expression 
is  strange. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  147 

but  the  Church  ;  and  not  merely  the  local  church — 
it  is  she  who  presides  over  the  dydTrtj — but  the 
Church  Universal. 

The  passage  as  a  whole  is  obscure  ;  but  one  must 
not  exaggerate.  Some  points  are  sufficiently  clear. 
To  begin  with  it  is  certain  that  Ignatius  addresses 
not  the  Roman  bishop  or  hierarchy  but  the 
iKK\t](rta.  The  Roman  Church  then  presides  over 
at  least  some  churches.  She  is  also  their  authorita- 
tive instructor.  1  Her  presidency,  whatever  be  its 
range,  is,  therefore,  pastoral  and  not,  as  Lightfoot 
contends,  a  mere  pre-eminence  in  practical  good- 
ness. Further,  in  view  of  her  authoritative  inter- 
vention in  the  affairs  of  the  Church  at  Corinth, — 
an  intervention  which  Ignatius  seems  to  have  had 
in  mind  when  writing  the  epistle — we  consider  it 
probable  that  her  presidency  is  localized  rather 
than  limited  by  the  words  iv  Toira  xo^plov ' Poomaicov.^ 

St.  Polycarp 

Polycarp,  an  immediate  disciple  of  John  the 
Evangelist,   was   bishop   of   Smyrna   during   the 

^  cfr.  Rom.  iii  :  aXXovS  ISiSa^ere,  lyo)  8e  ^cAw  tva  KOLKetva 
Qk^aia  y  a  fj.aOrjTfvovTe's  evTiWecrdi — "  Ye  taught  others  ; 
my  desire  is  that  those  lessons  shall  hold  good  which  as 
teachers  ye  enjoin." 

2  That  the  saint  should  have  written  Iv  ron-^  x'^P^^'" 
'Pw^atojv  for  €v  '^iofiy  is,  I  confess,  strange.  Batiffol,  however, 
regards  such  "  affectation  "  as  characteristic  of  Ignatius.  I 
may  add  that  the  accuracy  of  Lightfoot's  translation  :  "  in 
the  country  of  the  region  of  the  R.,"  is,  to  say  the  least,  question- 
able. 


148  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

earlier  half  of  the  second  century.  He  was  mar- 
tyred in  his  eighty-sixth  year.  From  an  encyclical 
written  by  his  bereaved  flock  and  dealing  with  his 
martyrdom,  we  are  able  to  fix  the  date  of  his 
death  with  approximate  certainty  as  February  23, 
155  A.D.i  Of  the  numerous  letters  addressed  by 
him  to  individuals  and  to  communities  -  only  one 
has  reached  us.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Philippians, 
who  had  requested  him  to  send  them  a  word  of 
comfort  and  exhortation,  together  with  any 
epistles  of  Ignatius  which  he  might  have  in  his 
possession.^  The  authenticity  of  the  letter  is 
vouched  for  by  Irenaeus.^ 

The  author  commends  the  kindness  and  fraternal 
charity  of  the  Philippians  in  welcoming  and 
escorting  Ignatius  and  the  other  martyrs  on  their 
way  to  Rome.^  He  cannot  pretend  to  speak  with 
the  authority  of  their  founder,  Paul,  nevertheless 
he  will  address  a  word  of  warning  and  exhortation 
to  them.^  He  condemns  avarice  as  the  root  of  aU 
evil,  exhorts  wives  to  be  faithful  to  their  husbands, 
and  to  bring  up  their  children  in  piety.  Widows 
should    be    sober-minded ;     deacons    blameless ; 

1  cjr.  Barden.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  36  ;  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  166. 

2  cfr.  Eus.  H.  E.  v.  20,  28. 

^  How  strongly  this  request  of  the  Phihppians  witnesses  to 
the  sohdarity  of  the  new  Diaspora ! 

*  Adv.  hcBr.  iii.   3,  4.     Irenaeus  describes  the  letter  as 

IKaVCOTttTTJ 

^  c.  i.  *  c.  iii. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  149 

young  people  chaste.     "  No  profligate,"  he  writes, 
"  shall  inherit  the  kingdom."  * 

Christianity  is  a  deposit,  a  treasury  of  divine 
truth  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  the 
apostles.  2  The  faith  is  the  same  for  all,  and  must 
be  zealously  guarded  by  all.  Christians  must 
beware  of  false  brethren  who  in  hypocrisy  bear  the 
name  of  the  Lord  and  lead  vain  men  into  error.  ^ 
Heresy  puts  us  outside  the  fold  of  Christ ;  it  makes 
us  children  of  the  Adversary :  "  Whoso  accepts 
the  teaching  of  the  Docetae  is  of  the  devil,  and 
whoso  perverts  the  \oyia  of  Jesus  to  his  own 
lusts,  ^  and  says  that  there  is  neither  resurrection 
nor  judgment,  that  man  is  the  first-born  of  Satan." ^ 
Tradition  is  the  sole  norm  of  orthodoxy.  "  Where- 
fore let  us  forsake  the  vain-doing  of  the  many  and 
their  false  teachings  and  turn  unto  the  word 
delivered  unto  us  from  the  beginning."  * 

The  faith  is  statutory.  Christians  abide  by  the 
Lord's  precepts  and  teaching,'  and  obey  the  word.® 
Obedience  to  the  word  is  secured  through  obedience 
to  the  presbyters.  To  break  with  the  established 
hierarchy  is  to  break  with  God  and  with  Christ.* 
Schism  is  never  lawful. 

The  faithful  hold  together ;  the  Church  is  one. 
Christians    everywhere    conform    to     the     same 


c-  IV.  5  c.  vii. 

^  c.  vi.  6  ih. 

3  ih. 
*  A  thrust  at  Antinomianism. 

9   C.   V. 


C.  11 

c.  ix. 


150  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

authoritative  standard  of  belief  and  of  discipline. 
They  are  joined  together  in  the  truth,  and  con- 
stitute a  single  brotherhood.  "  Stand  fast,"  he 
writes,  "...  being  firm  in  the  faith  and  immove- 
able loving  the  brethren  and  being  kindly  affec- 
tioned  to  each  other,  joined  together  in  the 
truth.  1  .  .  .  May  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  eternal  High-priest 
Himself,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  build  you 
up  in  truth  and  purity  ;  and  may  He  grant  you 
a  lot  and  portion  among  His  saints  and  to  us 
with  you  and  to  all  that  are  under  heaven  who 
shall  believe  in  Christ  Jesus.  Pray  for  all  the 
saints."  ^ 

The  apostolic  tradition,  as  handed  down  and 
interpreted  by  "the  presbyters,"  was  the  samtly 
prelate's  constant  and  only  rule  of  faith.  After  his 
death  one  of  his  disciples,  a  Roman  presbyter 
named  Florinus,  fell  a  victim  to  Gnosticism. 
Irenaeus,  his  fellow-disciple,  wrote  to  rebuke  him : 
"  Florinus,"  his  letter  runs,  "  these  opinions  the 
presbyters,  who  went  before  us,  and  who  were  the 
companions  of  the  apostles,  did  not  deliver  to 
thee.  .  .  .  Our  master  Polycarp  related  all  that 
he  had  heard  from  the  apostles  concerning  the 
Lord  and  His  teaching,  having  received  them  from 
eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  Life.  And  I  am  able 
to  bear  witness  before  God  that  if  that  blessed  and 
apostolic  presbyter  had  heard  any  such  doctrines 

1  c.  X.  ^  c.  xii. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  161 

he  would  have  cried  out  and  stopped  his  ears ; 
and,  as  was  his  custom,  would  have  ex- 
claimed :  '  Oh,  good  God,  unto  what  times 
hast  Thou  kept  me,  that  I  should  endure  these 
things.'  "  1 

Towards  the  close  of  154,  or  early  in  155, 
Polycarp  made  his  way  to  Rome,  in  the  hope  of 
coming  to  an  understanding  with  Anicetus  as  to 
the  date  on  which  Easter  should  be  celebrated.  ^ 
They  failed  to  agree,  but  parted  friends.  At  the 
conference  Polycarp  held  for  the  Eastern  practice, 
on  the  ground  that  it  had  come  down  from  the 
apostles.  Anicetus,  on  the  other  hand,  contended 
that  the  Western  custom  was  that  followed  by  his 
predecessors  the  "  presbyters  "  of  Rome  {rwv  -rrpo 
avTov  TTpea/Surepoov).^  That  each  adhered  to  his 
own  view  matters  little  ;  what  is  important  is  that 
both  appealed  to  the  same  norm  of  orthodoxy — 
tradition. 


Other  Early  Writers 

All  the  available  evidence  goes  to  show  that  the 
principles  inculcated  by  the  apostolic  fathers  were 
universally  recognized.  Papias,  a  "  hearer "  of 
St.  John  *  and  an  intimate  friend  of  Polycarp,* 

1  Eus.  :  H.  E.  V.  20,  4-7.         »  Eus.  :  H.  E.  v.  24,  16. 
*  V.  supra.  *  cfr.  Iren.  Adv.  hcer.  v.  33. 

5  ib.  iii.  39. 

M 


152  THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS 

adopts  the  '  traditional '  rule  of  faith  in  dealing 
with  Gnosticism.  1  His  criterion  of  orthodoxy  is 
the  authentic  teaching  or  Xoym  of  Christ,  as 
received  from  His  disciples  and  their  followers. 
Apocryphal  Xoym,  as  well  as  novel  interpretations 
of  genuine  Xoyta,  must  be  set  aside.    To  Gnosticism 

he  opposes  the  irapaSoa-i^. 

Eusebius  has  partially  rescued  from  the  pit 
some  encyclical  letters,  addressed  by  Dionysius, 
bishop  of  Corinth,  to  a  number  of  churches,^ 
during  the  period  166-175.  These  letters  attest 
that  general  inter-ecclesiastical  communication 
which  we  find  so  much  in  evidence  in  the  sub- 
apostolic  age.  3  They  also  witness  to  the  unity  and 
inviolability  of  the  authoritative  faith.  All  or 
practically  all  treated  of  orthodoxy.  The  letter 
to  the  Lacedaemonians  for  example  was  a  compen- 
dium of  the  sound  teachmg,  while  that  addressed 
to  the  Nicomedians  was  a  defence  of  the  "  canon  " 
of  truth  against  the  heresy  of  Marcion.  The  letter 
to  the  churches  of  Crete  forbade  intercourse  with 
heretics.^ 


1  Papias'  work  was  entitled  :  Xoyiwv  K-i-piaK-wv  e^ijyqa-eis 
("  Expositions  of  the  Sayings  of  the  Lord  ").  The  work  has 
perished  except  for  a  few  passages  preserved  by  Eusebius  and 
Irenaeus.     Papias  wrote  about  130. 

2  He  addressed  letters  to  the  Romans,  Lacedaemonians, 
Nicomedians,  and  Cretans. 

^  V.  supra. 

4  cfr.  Eus.  :  H.  E.  iv.  23,  10-12  ;  ii.  25,  8. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS  153 

The  author  of  "  The  Shepherd  of  Hernias  "  ^  is 
conscious  of  the  unity  of  the  Christian  faith  and 
of  the  absolute  sinfuhiess  of  heresy.  "  Those  who 
introduce  strange  doctrines,"  he  writes,  "  and 
subvert  the  servants  of  God  .  .  .  persuading 
them  by  foolish  doctrines ;  these  may  repent.  .  .  . 
Many  have  repented.  But  all  who  will  not  repent 
are  lost."  ^  He  suggests,  further,  that  the  bishop 
of  Rome  has  the  care  of  all  the  churches :  "  The 
aged  woman,"  he  writes,  "  came  and  asked  me  if 
I  had  already  given  the  book  to  the  elders.  I  said 
that  I  had  not  given  it.  '  Thou  hast  done  well,' 
she  said,  .  .  .  '  write  two  little  books  and  send 
one  to  Clement  and  one  to  Grapte.  And  Clement 
shall  send  his  to  the  foreign  cities  for  this  is  his 

duty  (eVeiVft)  yap  iirireTpa'TrTai).''  "  ^ 

^  The  date  of  composition  is  uncertain.  Origen  regarded 
the  author  as  the  same  Hermas  who  is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (c.  xvi).  The  author  of  the 
Muratorian  fragment,  on  the  other  hand,  asserts  that  the  work 
was  composed  by  its  author  "  sedente  cathedram  urbis  Eomae 
ecclesiae  Pio  episcopo  fratre  eius  "  {circ.  140-155),  and  this 
view  is  adopted  by  most  modern  critics,  and  by  Bardenhewer, 
although  it  implies  that  Hermas  was  guilty  of  deceit  in  referrmg 
to  Clement  as  a  contemporary.  A  few  scholars,  with  Zahn, 
date  the  work  from  the  closing  years  of  the  first  century. 
Lightfoot  is  undecided.  All  things  considered,  it  seems  most 
satisfactor}''  to  place  the  date  of  composition  about  the  close 
of  the  first  century  and  allow  for  a  recension  during  the 
period  140-155. 

"  The  shepherd  "  is  quoted  as  Scripture  by  Irenaeus  (Adv. 
hcer.  iv.  20,2).  Origen,  too,  gives  it  as  his  personal  opinion  ('m^ 
puto ')  that  the  work  is  divinely  inspired  {Comm.  in  Rom.  x.  31). 
^  Sim.  viii.  c.  6.  ^  Vis.  ii.  4. 


CHAPTER  V 

JUSTIN   MARTYR 

Justin  Martyr  was  born  of  heathen  parents  at 
Nablus  (ancient  Sichem)i  about  the  dawn  of  the 
second  century.-  In  his  early  years  he  devoted 
himself  to  philosophy,  and  studied  successively  the 
systems  of  the  Stoics,  the  Peripatetics,  the 
Pythagoreans  and  the  Platonists.^  Finding  all 
unsatisfactory  he  finally  embraced  Christianity — 
"  the  words  of  the  Saviour" — -which  he  describes 
as  the  only  sound  and  serviceable  philosophy.'' 
For  him  the  Christian  religion  is  a  great '  wisdom  ' 
of  God,^  a  "  divine  philosophy,"  ®  more  lofty  than 
all  human  systems.'  Tertullian  entitles  him 
"philosopher  and  martyr."^  He  laid  down  his 
life  for  his  Master  at  Rome  163-167. ' 

Justin  was  the  ablest  Christian  apologist  of 
the  second  century.  He  defended  the  faith 
against  pagans,  Jews,  and  heretics.  Most  of  his 
writings  have   unhappily  perished,  including   his 

^  A-p.  i.  1.  ^  ih.  xxxviii. 

2  cjr-  Barden.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  49.         ®  Ap.  ii.  12. 
2  Dial.  ii.  '  ib.  15. 

*  ib.  viii.  ®  cfr.  Adv.  Valent.  v. 

*cfr.  Barden. :  loc.  cit. 
164 


JUSTIN  MARTYR  155 

chief  work :  Syntagma  adversus  omnes  haereses. 
Numerous  extant  compositions  have  been  ascribed 
to  him,  but  of  these  only  three  are  certainly 
genuine ;  they  are :  the  two  Apologies  and  the 
Dialogue  with  the  Jew  Trypho. 

Truth. — Justin  is  above  all  else  a  truth-seeker. 
He  followed  the  profession  of  philosopher  even 
subsequently  to  his  conversion/  and  as  an  apologist 
concerned  himself  exclusively  with  the  true :  - 
"  I  have  mentioned  these  things,"  he  writes, 
"  taking  nothing  whatever  into  consideration 
except  the  speaking  of  the  truth."  ^  If  he  urges 
men  to  embrace  Christianity,  it  is  because  he  has 
found  it  to  be  an  embodiment  of  truth.  He 
reasons  with  the  Emperor  and  with  Trypho  as 
with  lovers  of  truth.  If  Christianity  is  truth,  men 
are  bound  to  embrace  it ;  if  it  is  not  truth,  let  us 
have  done  with  it.*     Such  is  his  starting-point. 

The  Logos,  the  divine  Word,  is  truth  and  the 
sole  principle  of  truth.  Christ  was  the  Word  made 
flesh  ;  He  was  Truth  itself  Incarnate. 

But  the  Word  has  been  operative  independently 
of  the  Incarnation.  All  men  are  to  some  extent 
partakers  of  the  Word ;  and  those  who,  like 
Socrates,  and  Abraham,  lived  "  with  reason " 
{/nera  Xoyov),    were    Christians,  though  they  lived 

1  Eus.  H.  E.  xi.  8.     Dial,  i,  viii. 

^  Celsus  calls  Justin's  Apology  a  "  true  discourse." 

^  Dial.  cxx. 

*  Ap.  i.  2,  68 ;  ii.  15  ;  Dial.  cxx. 


156  JUSTIN  MARTYR 

anterior  to  Christ.  ^  The  Word  is  germinally 
operative  in  every  human  sonl.^  In  so  far  as  men, 
by  the  light  of  reason  or  by  revelation,  arrive  at 
truth,  they  participate  in  the  Word.  The  religious 
and  philosophical  systems  of  Jews,  of  heretics,  and 
of  heathens  owe  to  the  Word  the  measure  of  truth 
contained  in  each.^  "  Whatever  either  lawgivers 
or  philosophers  uttered  well,  they  elaborated  by 
finding  and  contemplating  some  part  of  the  Word. 
But  since  they  did  not  know  the  whole  of  the  Word, 
which  is  Christ,  they  often  contradicted  them- 
selves.   .     .    ."  '* 

"  .  .  .  But  whatever  things  were  rightly  said 
among  all  men,  are  the  property  of  us  Christians."  ^ 
All  truth  is  Christian  ;  and  the  fulness  of  truth  is 
found  only  in  the  system  established  by  Truth 
Incarnate.  The  Gospels — the  memoirs  of  the 
Apostles  {aTTOfxi'tijuovevjULera  t&v  axocrroXtoi/) — are  re- 
positories of  Christian  truth. 

Christianity  Cosmopolitan  and  Catholic. — The 
Old  Law  has  been  abrogated ;  *  Christ  is  another 
Moses.'  He  has  established  a  new  and  everlasting 
covenant,  to  which  men  are  admitted  irrespective 
of  race  or  nationality.  Christians  are  a  people  of 
God,  chosen  indiscriminately  from  the  nations.* 
They  constitute  the  true  Israel,  God's  own  children, 
a  new  and  elect  race.^ 

1  Ap.  i.  46 ;  cfr.  Ap.  ii.  8.  ^  ib.  13,  20. 

^  ib.  ii.  10,  13.  ^  Dial,  xi,  xviii. 

'  Dial,  xxxix.  '  ib. 

*  Ap.  ii.  10.  8  ib.  cfr.  xxiv. 

^  ib.  cxxiii.,  cxxxv-vi. 


JUSTIN    MARTYR  157 

The  new  '  tendency  '  is  catholic  ;  Christians  are 
to  be  found  in  every  land.  "  There  is  not  any 
race  of  men  .  .  .  among  whom  prayers  and 
eucharists  are  not  celebrated  in  the  name  of  Jesus." ^ 
The  Gospel  is  "  Christ's  mighty  word,  which  His 
Apostles,  gomg  forth  from  Jerusalem,  preached 
everywhere  ;  and  although  death  is  decreed  against 
those  who  confess  the  name  of  Jesus,  we  everywhere 
both  embrace  and  teach  it."  ^  The  same  gospel  has 
been  preached  in  every  land  by  the  Apostles  and 
their  successors.^ 

Christianity  Individualistic.  —  The  Christian 
system  is  just.  If  the  individual  is  rewarded  only 
for  personal  righteousness,  he  is  punished  only  for 
personal  sin.  "  Father  shall  not  perish  for  son, 
nor  son  for  father,  but  each  for  his  own  sin,  as  each 
shall  be  saved  for  his  own  righteousness "  * 
Further,  "  those  who  are  foreknown  to  be  sinners, 
whether  men  or  angels,  are  not  made  wicked  by 
God's  fault."  ^  The  Divine  prevision  does  not 
involve  determinism. 

Christianity  a  Unit. — The  faithful  are  bound 
together  by  many  ties.  They  constitute  one 
people  ;  ^  one  visible  whole,  '  rounded  off  from 
pagans^  and  Jews,^  on  the  one  side,  and  from 
heretics  on  the  other.^*^  They  have  one  faith, ^^  one 

1  Dial,  cxvii.  ^  ib.  cx-cxix. 

2  Ap.  i.  45.  7  ^^  i^  14^  25 
2  ib.  50.  8  ib.  25. 

*  Dial.  cxI.  9  ib.  31,  36 ;  Dial,  xxxix. 

^  ib.  cxli.  10  Dial.  xxxv. 

^1  ib.  cx-cxix. 


158  JUSTIN  MARTYR 

regula  morumy^  one  baptism. ^  In  fine,  they  are 
coheirs  to  the  same  inheritance.^ 

Fraternal  charity  constitutes  an  additional 
bond  ^  Christianity  is  an  association  of  brothers, 
an  dSe\<i>6Trig.^  "  Those  who  have  assented  to  our 
teaching  and  have  been  baptized,  are  conducted 
to  an  assembly  of  the  brethren  that  prayers  may 
be  offered  for  ourselves,  for  the  newly-baptized, 
and  for  all  others  in  every  place."  ^ 

The  new  a^eX^oxj/p  is  a  church.  In  the  Dialogue 
Justin  quotes  from  Psalm  xliv.  the  words : '  Hearken, 
O  Daughter,  and  behold,  and  incline  thine  ear  and 
forget  thy  people  and  thy  fathers  house.'  "  The 
word  of  God,"  he  proceeds,  "  speaks  to  those  who 
believe  in  Him,  as  being  one  soul  and  one  synagogue 
and  one  church,  as  to  a  daughter.  It  thus  addresses 
the  Church,  which  has  sprung  from  His  name  and 
partakes  of  it  (for  we  are  all  called  Christians)."  ' 
For  Justin,  accordingly,  there  is  a  Church  of 
churches,  which  is  the  Bride  of  Christ.  This 
church  he  sets  over  against  the  Jewish  synagogue.  ® 

The  Way  of  Salvation. — The  Son  of  God  has 
saved  men  by  enlightening  them."  Christ  has 
delivered  unto  us  a  certain  body  of  truths  and 
precepts,^"  for  the  conversion  and  restoration  of 


1  Ap.  i.  45,  50,  57  ;  Dial,  xxxix.     «  Ap.  i.  65. 

a  Ap.  i.  61  ;  Dial,  xiv,  xliv.  '  Dial.  Ixiii,  ex. 

'  Dial.  lix.  ^  ih.  cxxxiv. 

*  Ap.  i.  14,  67.  *  Dial,  xxiv,  xxxix. 

5  ib.  10  cjr.  Ap.  i.  27  ;  ii.  4. 


JUSTIN    MARTYR  159 

the  race.i  Those  who  believe — "  to  whom  the 
gates  of  light  have  been  opened " — shall  be 
saved.  - 

To  avail  of  the  Redemption,  we  must  "  admit 
the  light,"  reform  our  lives,  and  be  baptized. 
"  Those  who  are  persuaded  and  believe,  and  who 
undertake  to  live  accordingly,  repenting  of  sin 
committed,  are  baptized."^  We  are  saved  through 
"  water,  faith,  and  wood."  * 

Reason  and  Authority. — Christianity  is  a  religion 
of  authority.  Justin  is  quite  clear  about  this. 
"  As  Abraham  believed  the  voice  of  God,"  he 
writes,  "  so  we  have  believed  God's  voice  spoken 
by  the  apostles."  ^  The  new  '  light '  has  emanated 
from  the  Word  made  flesh  ;  ^  the  Gospel  is  divine. 
Justin  never  tires  of  opposing  it  to  the  doctrines 
and  precepts  of  men.'  To  reject  Christianity  is 
to  despise  the  word  of  the  Lord.^ 

The  gospel  has  reached  us  by  tradition  :  "  From 
Jerusalem  there  went  forth  into  the  world  men, 
twelve  in  number,  and  these  illiterate  .  .  .  but 
by  the  power  of  God  they  proclaimed  to  every  race 
of  men  that  they  were  sent  by  Christ,  to  teach  to 
all  the  word  of  God  "  ^  The  Twelve  have  successors 
in   the    ministry.      They   were   commissioned   to 


1  Ap.i.  15,  23.        5  Dial.  cxix. 

2  Dial.  vii.  «  ib.  xxiv.,  xxxix.  ;  A'p.  i.  13,  21. 
^  Ap.  i.  61.  '  Dial.  cxl. 

*  Dial,  cxxxviii.       «  ib.  cxx.,  cxxxiii. ;  Ap.  i.  14;  cjr.  ii.  13. 
»  Ap.  i.  39. 


160  JUSTIN   MARTYR 

preach  the  gospel  to  every  race  and  in  every  land. 
Their  voice  would  go  out  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  ^ 

The  apostles  and  their  successors  teach  with  the 
authority  of  the  Master ;  to  hear  them  is  to  hear 
Him.  2  "  The  doctrines,  which  we  propose  to  you, 
are  those  delivered  by  Christ  to  the  Twelve.^  .  .  . 
For  these  doctrines  we  are  prepared  to  die."  ^ 

Christianit}^  is,  therefore,  a  -TrapdSoa-i^ ;  we  stand 
by  an  authoritative  tradition.  Our  knowledge  of 
the  divine  nature  and  attributes,  for  example,  is 
got  by  tradition.^  Christ  is  our  teacher.  What  we 
have  received  from  Him,  through  the  apostles  and 
their  successors,  we  transmit  to  others  who  are 
willing  to  learn  as  we  have  been  taught.^  When 
Justin  is  asked  why  Christians  do  not  kill  them- 
selves and  pass  to  God  at  once,  and  thus  save 
pagans  the  trouble  of  executing  them,  he  replies : 
'  If  we  killed  ourselves,  men  would  cease  to  be 
instructed  m  the  divine  doctrines.'  Christianity  is 
a  definite  deposit  of  divine  truths  transmitted 
from  generation  to  generation.' 

The  gospel  being  the  word  of  God,  no  one  is 
at  liberty  to  reject  it.  We  know  that  the  Christian 
teachmg  is  true,  not  because  it  resembles  in  some 
respects  the  teaching  of  philosophers,  but  because 
it  has  been  imparted  by  a  divine  Master.^    It  must 

1  Ap.  40.  ^  ib.  10. 

2  ib.  53  ;  Dial,  cxxxvi.  e  ifj^  q^  13.  14. 

3  Ap.  i.  67.  7  ib.  ii.  4. 

4  ib.  8  8  ^-5.  i.  23. 


JUSTIN   MARTYR  161 

be  accepted  and  upheld  in  its  entirety.  Truths  of 
faith,  which  transcend  reason,  must  be  accepted  on 
the  authority  of  Christ  who  revealed  them.^  The 
principle  holds  in  any  revealed  system:  "The 
prophets  proposing  their  inspired  doctrines,  did 
not  use  demonstration  in  their  treatises,  because 
they  witnessed  to  a  truth  which  is  above  all 
demonstration."  ^  Could  the  principle  of  authority 
be  more  clearly  inculcated  ? 

It  is  therefore  right  and  rational  to  accept 
mysteries  of  religion :  they  are  portion  of  the 
'  mighty  word.'  The  deposit,  doctrinal  and 
disciplinary,  is,  in  itself,  unpalatable.  Many  of  its 
truths  are  mysteries,'^  many  of  its  precepts  exact- 
ing ;  *  but  "  Christians  who  have  been  made  wise 
by  them,  confess  that  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  are 
sweeter  than  honey  and  the  honey-comb  ;  so  that 
though  threatened  with  death  they  do  not  deny 
Him."  ' 

Christians  implicitly  profess  the  same  truths, 
because  all  embrace  the  deposit.  But  absolute 
unanimity  is  not  to  be  expected.  Difference  of 
opinion  in  matters  of  belief  is  perfectly  legitimate, 


^  Ap.  i.  14. 

^  Dial.  vii. 

^  Ap.  i.  19-22  :  Justin  instances  the  eternal  generation  of 
the  Son  as  an  example  of  a  revealed  mystery.  The  immortality 
of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  are  revealed  truths 
which  are  demonstrable. 

*  Dial.  X.  5  (f^^  XXX. 


162  JUSTIN   MARTYR 

within  certain  limits.  ^  The  deposit  is  immutable  ; 
it  can  neither  grow  nor  dimiaish.  But  our  know- 
ledge of  its  contents  may  grow  ;  truths  of  faith 
may  be  "  defined.''' 

It  is  only  the  rejection  of  defined  doctrines  that 
constitutes  heresy.  Those  who  deny  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  for  example,-  or  the  eternity 
of  hell  3  are  heretical.  On  the  other  hand,  one  may 
lawfully  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  millennium. 
Although  probably  contained  in  the  deposit,*  it 
is  not  defined.  Similarly  observance  of  the  Mosaic 
Law  is  licit,  but  optional.  Those  who  hold  that 
its  observance  is  obligatory,  profess  heresy  and 
incur  excommunication.^ 

And  yet  reason  has  its  province  ;  even  a  religion 
of  authority  has  a  rational  basis.  If  we  accept 
truths  on  authority,  it  is  because  we  have  con- 
vinced ourselves  that  it  is  rational  to  do  so. 
Justin's  appeal  throughout  is  professedly  to  reason, 
and  his  system  is  thoroughly  self-consistent. 
Reason  bids  us  accept  even  the  deepest  mysteries, 
when  these  are  revealed  by  the  Son  of  God.  The 
Christian  rule  of  faith  is  at  once  authoritative  and 
rational. 

Reason  is  the  handmaid  of  faith  ;  it  establishes 
the  preambles.  Reason,  influenced  by  super- 
natural grace,^  leads  us  to  embrace  revelation.' 


^  Dial.  Ixxx, 

*  Dial.  Ixxx. 

2  ib. 

^  ib.  xlvi-vii. 

3  Ap.  i.  8. 

6  ib.  vii,  cxix. 

'  ib.  cxlii ;  Ap.  i.  53,  55. 

JUSTIN  MARTYR  163 

It  was  so  from  the  beginning.  The  divinity  of  the 
prophet's  mission  was  established  by  his  miracles  ; 
and  Justin,  adopting  the  same  principle,  under- 
takes to  prove  ^  that  Jesus  is  the  Messias.^ 

But  reason  has  to  do  with  more  than  the  mere 
preambles :  it  plays  an  important  part  in  the 
domain  of  faith  proper.  Christian  truths,  which 
are  pronounced  absurd  by  our  adversaries,  can  be 
shown  to  be  rational  in  themselves.-^  On  grounds 
of  pure  reason  and  analogy,  Justin  undertakes  to 
justify  our  acceptance  of  some  of  the  deepest 
mysteries,  such  as  the  eternal  generation  of  the 
Word,  His  divine  Sonship,  His  virginal  birth,  and 
the  reality  of  His  suffering.*  By  reason,  too,  he 
demonstrates  that  human  freedom  and  responsi- 
bility are  not  incompatible  with  the  divine  pre- 
science.^ He  proves  similarly  the  spirituality  of 
the  soul  and  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection.^ 

Reason  is,  however,  a  mere  subsidiary  criterion 
of  Christian  truth.  Though  we  were  utterly  unable 
to  demonstrate  the  possibility  of  the  resurrection, 
we  should  still  be  bound  to  accept  it  on  the  authority 
of  Christ,  Who  has  said  that  "  what  is  impossible 
with  men  is  possible  with  God."  '  Those  who 
refuse  to  believe  what  God  has  taught  us  through 
Christ,  will  be  condemned  to  heU.^ 

^  Dial,  cxxxiv,  cxxxvii.  ^  ib.  43. 

2  ib.  ix,  xi,  xxxix  sqq.  *  ib.  18,  19. 

^  ib.  cxviii  sqq.  '  ib. 

*  Ap.  i.  20,  30,  31  sqq.  »  ib. 


164  JUSTIN  MARTYR 

Heresy  and  Schism. — Lovers  of  '  wisdom,' 
though  professing  the  most  diverse  and  conflicting 
doctrines,  are  all  named  philosophers  ;  and  yet  it 
would  be  quite  unjust  to  condemn  all  philosophers 
as  fools,  because  some  are  not  wise.^  The  principle 
holds  equally  in  religion.  Christians  as  a  body, 
should  not  be  condemned,  because  some  Avho  bear 
the  Christian  name  are  known  to  be  unsound  in 
faith  or  in  morals.  These  men  name  themselves 
Christians,  but  are  not  really  such.  They  differ 
from  the  genuine  Christian,  as  foolish  wisdom- 
seekers  differ  from  the  true  philosopher.  ^ 

Heresy  appeared  in  the  Church  at  an  early  date. 
After  the  Ascension,  some  men,  prompted  by  the 
devil,  practised  magical  art  and  were  declared 
gods  by  the  people.  Such  were  Simon  and 
Menander.  Marcion  taught  his  disciples  to  believe 
that  the  World  was  created  by  a  being  inferior  to 
God.^  The  rise  of  heresies  and  schisms  was  pre- 
dicted by  Jesus.* 

Christians  constitute  one  Church,  one  fold. 
Heretics  and  schismatics  form  groups  or  sects 
apart.  ^  They  laugh  at  us.^  They  call  themselves 
Christians,  but  are  not  really  such.  We  name  them 
after  the  authors  of  their  respective  doctrines : 
Marcians,  Valentinians,  Basilidians,  Saturnilians, 
and    so    forth.      Over   against   all   heretical   and 


1  Ap.  i.  4,  7. 

4  ib.  82  :  Dial.  xxxv. 

2  ih.  26. 

^  Dial,  xlvi,  xlvii. 

8  ib. 

^  Ap.  i.  Ixv. 

JUSTIN    MARTYR  165 

schismatical  sects  stands  the  one  true  fold  of  Christ, 
comprisuig  those  only  who  clmg  to  the  true  faith. 
The  fact  that  some  who  profess  Christianity  teach, 
not  the  doctrines  of  Christ  but  those  of  the  spirits 
of  error,  causes  us,  who  are  disciples  of  the  true  and 
pure  doctrine,  to  be  more  faithful  and  steadfast.^ 
The  Christian  faith  is  one. 

Christ  warned  His  disciples  to  beware  of  heretics  : 
"  Many  shall  come  in  My  name,"  He  said,  "clothed 
outwardly  in  sheep's  garments,  but  inwardly  they 
are  ravenmg  wolves."  ^  Heresiarchs  are  sheep 
become  ^volves,  who  retain  the  Christian  name, 
the  more  readily  to  prey  upon  the  fold  from  which 
they  have  been  expelled.  Justin  contrasts  them 
with  the  Christian  teachers,  whose  mission  and 
doctrines  are  from  above.  Christians,  who  give  ear 
to  heresy,  act  irrationally  and  allow  themselves  to 
be  borne  off  from  the  fold  as  lambs  by  a  wolf.=^ 

Unlike  heretics,  all  who  are  really  Christians 
profess  the  same  faith.*  This  faith  has  been 
delivered  to  us  by  the  Son  of  God,  and  is  alone 
true.^  The  divine  Word  is  the  sole  prmciple  of 
truth.  Satan  is  the  author  of  all  unsound  doctrines 
and  practices.  It  is  he  who  misleads  men  and 
raises  up  heretics.  Those  who  abandon  the  true 
faith  become  the  prey  of  godless  doctrines  and  of 
devils.*'    Heretics  who  do  not  repent  are  lost.' 

1  Dial.  XXXV.         ^  Ap.  i.  58.  ^  Ap.  ii.  13. 

"  Mt.  vii.  15.         4  ib.  26,  58  ;  Dial.  xxxv.     «  ^-5.  j,  53. 
'  Dial,  xlvii. 


EXCURSUS 

Celsus  and  Origen. — Celsus,  a  pagan  philosopher, 
published,  about  178,  a  work  entitled  oXtjOt)^  Xoyo?,^ 
in  which  he  denounced  Christianity  as  a  system  of 
blind  faith.  Christians,  he  alleged,  refuse  to 
examine  their  principles  He  professed  to  have 
made  a  thorough  study  of  Christianity  "  When  I 
question  them,"  he  writes,  "  I  do  not  seek  mforma- 
tion,  for  I  am  conversant  with  all  their  opinions." 
He  will  discuss  the  faith  ^^'ith  them  simply  to 
convince  them  of  its  absurdity.  But  to  no  purpose  : 
"  they  do  not  wisli  either  to  give  or  receive  a 
reason  for  their  tenets,  but  keep  repeating  imv 
i^era^e  a\\a  irlarevcrov — examine  not  but  believe."  - 
He  recommends  that,  in  adopting  religious  beliefs, 
we  should  be  guided,  not  by  blind  faith,  but  by 

reason   (Xoyw  koX  Aoyi/fo5  oj>;yo5). 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  an  unbeliever 
would  be  quite  fair  in  representing  the  position  of 
his  adversaries,  and  much  of  what  Celsus  \\  rites  of 
the  deposit  and  the  rule  of  faith  is  perfectly  untrue. 
He  states,  for  example,  that  Christians  act  irration- 
ally ;  that  they  extol  foolishness,  and  blindly 
accept  absurd  dogmas  on  the  authority  of  presbyters 
who  are  no  less  ignorant  than  themselves.    But,  in 

1  Barden.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  147. 

2  Orig.  :  contra  Cela.'i.  9-12. 

166 


CELSUS  167 

the  main,  his  contention  is  just — ^namely,  that 
Christianity  is  a  deposit,  an  authoritative  tradition 
transmitted  through  the  presbyters ;  and  that  to 
reason  about  the  intrinsic  credibility  or  otherwise 
of  truths  of  faith  is  contrary  to  the  Christian 
spirit.  In  an  age  when  Gnosticism  was  rife,  and 
when  the  majority  of  Christians  were  unlettered, 

the  motto  M    e'lerafe    aXKa    Trlcrreua-ov  had  much    tO 

recommend  it. 

Justin  an  Innovator. — As  an  apologist,  therefore, 
Justin  Martyr  w  as  an  innovator.  His  predecessors 
had  been  satisfied  with  an  appeal  to  the  evidences 
of  Christianity.  They  established  the  divine 
mission  of  Christ  by  arguments  based  on  prophecy 
and  on  miracles ;  and  thus,  assisted  by  grace,  led 
men  to  the  Church.  Once  a  Christian  was  baptized, 
reason  ceased  to  play  a  prominent  part  in  his 
reHgious  life.  Doctrines  and  precepts  were  ac- 
cepted by  him  as  coming  from  Christ  through  the 
"  presbyters,"  and  doubts  as  to  intrinsic  credibility 
were  simply  stifled. 

Justin  extended  the  domain  of  reason.  Not 
satisfied  with  establishing  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  and  the  divinity  of  Christianity,  he  under- 
took to  demonstrate  many  truths  of  faith,  and  to 
establish  the  intrinsic  possibility  of  others.  He 
met  pagan  controversialists  on  their  own  ground 
and  denied  that,  as  Celsus  and  others  had  alleged. 
Christians  would  not  and  could  not  discuss  the 
reasonableness  of  their  opinions.  In  all  this 
Justin  Martyr  was  in  advance  of  his  time ;  his 

N 


168  CELSUS 

writings  mark  a  distinct  development  in  Christian 
apologetics 

Celsus  further  condemned  Christianity,  as  being 
an  aggregate  of  conflicting  sects.  "  In  the 
beginning,"  he  writes,  "  Christians  were  few  in 
number  and  held  the  same  beliefs,  but  when  they 
grew  to  be  a  great  multitude,  they  became  divided 
and  separated,  each  wishing  to  have  his  own 
party."  ^  "  Moreover,"  he  continues,  "  they  utter 
against  each  other  dreadful  blasphemies,  saying  all 
manner  of  things  shameful  to  be  spoken  ;  nor  will 
they  yield  in  the  slightest  point  for  the  sake  of 
harmony,  hating  each  other  with  a  perfect  hatred."  ^ 

Origen  replied  effectively.  The  existence  of 
numerous  heresies,  he  argues,  furnishes  no  real 
basis  of  accusation  against  Christianity  itself, — 
why  should  it  ?  Is  the  true  science  of  medicine 
to  be  condemned  because  of  the  existence  of 
quacks  ?  ^ 

Christianity  must  not  be  confounded  with  heresy. 
Some  who  bear  the  Christian  name  deny  that 
Yahve  is  the  God  of  the  Christians,  and  some 
distinguish  between  the  "  carnal "  and  the 
"  spiritual "  ;  but  what  does  this  avail  against  us 
who  belong  to  the  Church.  These  monstrous 
inventions  are  disapproved  by  the  disciples  of 
Jesus. 

Celsus  himself  recognizes  that  there  is  a  root- 


1  Orig.  :  contra  Gels.  iii.  9.  *  ih.  v.  63. 

3  t6.  iii.  12. 


CELSUS  169 

sect  which  he  names   the   multitude    (to  TrXijOo^),^ 
the    great    church    {v  tJ-eyaXri  iKKXrjo-la),^    and    from 
which   all   other   sects   have   broken   away.      He 
recognizes,    too,    that,    while    diversity    of    belief 
characterizes  the  other  sects,  ^  members  of  "  the 
great  church  "  have  a  common  faith.  ^    But  Origen 
emphasizes  the  fact  that  it  is  only  members  of  the 
-TrXrjOo?  who  belong  to  the  Church  and  are  really 
Christians.^     Hatred   and   disunion   are  rampant 
only  among  heretics.     "  We  who  are  followers  of 
the  word  of  Jesus,"  he  writes,  "  and  who  have 
accustomed  ourselves  to  think  and  speak  and  act 
in  harmony  with  His  teaching,  when  reviled  bless, 
when  persecuted  we  suffer  patiently,  when  defamed 
we  entreat.     We  do  not  regard  with  hatred  the 
corrupters  of  Christianity,  nor  utter  things  shame- 
ful against  the  heterodox,  but  rather  use  every 
exertion  to  raise  them  to  a  better  condition.    And 
if  those  who  hold  erroneous  opinions  refuse  to  be 
convinced,  we  observe  the  injunction  laid  down  for 
the  treatment  of  such :    *  A  man  who  is  a  heretic 
after  the  first  and  second  admonition  cast  out.'  "  « 
Over  against  all  heretical  sects  and  distinct  from 
them  stands  the  assembly  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 
17  fxeyaXr}  €KK\T](rla.       Repudiating      "  inventions," 
these    hold  fast    to    an    authoritative   irapdSoa-i^, 
transmitted   to   them   from   Christ   through   the 


1  Orig. :  contra  Cels.  v.  61.         *  ib.  v,  59  sqq. 

2  ib.  59.  5  45.  V.  61. 

3  ib.  iii.  10 ;  V.  63.  «  ib.  v.  63. 


170  CELSUS 

apostles  and  the  "  presbyters."  In  the  eyes 
of  pagans  they  were  an  unreasoning  ttXvOo?. 
Heretics  ^  and  schismatics  are  condemned  of  them- 
selves ;  they  are  outside  the  Church.^  They  are 
Christians  only  in  name. 

^  Origen  makes  it  clear  that  a  heretic  until  "  cast  out  " 
remains  within  the  Church  (v.  63). 

2  In  each  church  those  only  were  admitted  to  the  Eucharistic 
meal  who,  having  received  baptism,  subjected  themselves  to 
the  hierarchy  in  matters  of  faith  and  of  discipline  (i.  66). 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

St.  Irenaeus  was  an  Asiatic  and  a  disciple  of 
St.  Polycarp.  The  date  of  his  birth  is  uncertain  ; 
but  we  know  that,  having  spent  his  early  years  at 
Smyrna,  in  the  society  of  his  master  and  other 
"  presbyters,"  ^  he  made  his  way  to  Rome  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Afterwards, 
when  a  priest  of  the  Church  of  Lyons,  he  was  sent 
to  Pope  Eleutherus  bearing  a  letter  from  the  clergy 
of  that  city  and  of  Vienne.  The  document,  which 
dealt  with  the  Montanist  doctrines,  referred  to 
Irenaeus  as  having  been  "  zealous  for  the  testa- 
ment of  Christ."  ^  On  his  return  from  Rome,  he 
succeeded  Aurelius  as  bishop  of  Lyons  (177-178). 
Irenaeus  was  the  author  of  many  works  of  a 
controversial  character.  Of  these  the  only  one 
which  has  come  down  to  us  complete  is  his 
Adversus    Haereses  ^   an   extensive   tract   in   five 


1  i.e.,  immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles. 

2  Eus.  H.  E.  V.  4.  2. 

^  Its   proper  title  is  :  "EAey^o?    '<ai   avarpom)  T'^s   ^euSwvo/iov 

yvoxrews^    "  Detection   and   overthrow   of   the  falsely -named 

gnosis." 

171 


172  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

books,    directed    against    the    Gnostics.     It    was 
compiled  during  the  period  180-1 98.  ^ 

Doctrine. — The  Gnostics  made  a  Demiurge  the 
principle  of  evil.  Irenaeus,  on  the  contrary, 
taught  that  all  evil  is  traceable  to  man's  abuse 
of  free  will, — ^to  the  faU  of  Adam.  Man  is  free.^ 
In  Adam,  as  its  juridical  head,  the  race  fell,  by 
disobeying  the  Creator.  A  Saviour  was  necessary. 
"  Then  the  Son  of  God,  Who  existed  from  the 
beginning — the  same  Who  created  all  things  .  .  . 
became  incarnate  ;  and  summing  up  in  Himself 
{i.e.,  standing  for)  a  long  line  of  human  beings, 
furnished  us  with  salvation,  so  that  what  we  had 
lost  in  Adam  we  recovered  in  Christ  Jesus."  ^  The 
Word  incarnate  is  another  Adam,  a  new  repre- 
sentative of  the  race  ;  and,  as  by  carnal  birth  we 
become  children  of  Adam  and,  therefore,  liable  to 
death,  so  by  our  re-birth  through  baptism  we 
become  children  of  Christ  and  inherit  life  eternal.* 
Men  avail  of  the  Redemption  by  faith.  To  be 
saved  through  Jesus  we  must  accept  the  gospel 
promulgated  by  Him.^ 


1  The  work  with  the  exception  of  a  few  isolated  passages 
has  not  survived  in  the  original  Greek,  but  only  in  an  in- 
different, though  slavishly  Hteral  Latin  translation,  executed 
shortly  after  the  pubUcation  of  the  original. 

2  iv.  37,  1-3  ;  ib.  3,  2  ;  ib.  41,  2. 

3  iii.  18,  1  ;  V.  16,  3. 

*  V.  1,  3  ;  ib.  12,  3  ;  ib.  14,  1-3. 
5  iv.  6,  5  ;  ib.  13,  1. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  173 


Rule  of  Faith 

Scripture  Authoritative  hut  Insufficient.—  The 
*  word  '  has  come  down  to  us  by  tradition,  written 
and  unwritten.  The  Scriptures,  particularly  the 
four  gospels,  1  are  reliable,  since  they  record  the 
teaching  of  the  apostles  and  have  been  dictated 
by  the  Word  of  God  and  His  Spirit.  ^ 

But  Scripture,  by  itself,  is  insufficient  as  a  rule 
of  faith.  The  "  dead  letter  "  is  powerless  to  crush 
heresy,  even  in  those  who  admit,  to  say  nothing  of 
those  who  deny,  the  authority  of  the  inspired  text. 

Those  who  grant  its  authority  will  not  allow  that 
their  own  position  is  unscriptural.  They  are  quick 
to  garble  and  pervert  the  written  word,  to  support 
their  views.  ^  Collecting  a  set  of  texts  from  various 
parts  of  Scripture,  they  give  them  an  unnatural 
interpretation,  to  suit  their  theories.  In  this  they 
remind  one  of  those  who  bring  forward  any  kind 
of  hypothesis  they  fancy,  and  then  proceed  to 
find  support  for  it  in  the  Homeric  ballads  ;  "  so  that 
the  ignorant  imagiae  that  Homer  actually  com- 
posed the  verses  on  the  hypothesis  in  question, 
although  it  has,  in  fact,  been  but  recently  con- 
structed." * 

Against  arguments  drawn  from  Scripture  they 

1  iii.  1  ;  ib.  11,  7.  »  i   jg^  19 

2  ii.  28,  2.  *  i.  9,  4. 


174  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

raise  all  manner  of  difficulties.^  When  hard 
pressed,  they  appeal  to  new  and  unauthorised 
translations  of  the  sacred  text.^  They  even  adduce 
a  number  of  apocryphal  and  spurious  writings, 
which  they  themselves  have  forged,  to  bewilder 
the  minds  of  foolish  men  and  of  such  as  are  ignorant 
of  the  Scriptures  of  truth.  ^  Genuine  Scripture  they 
examine,  not  to  extract  therefrom  the  truth,  but 
rather  to  find  in  it  some  expressions  which  seem 
to  favour  their  views.  They  are  prompted  to 
study  the  inspired  documents  more  by  love  of 
their  own  opinions  than  by  any  desire  to  discover 
truth.  4 

Others,  when  confuted  from  the  written  word, 
profess  to  be  guided,  not  by  Scripture  alone,  but 
by  Scripture  read  in  the  light  of  tradition  :  "  When 
confuted  from  the  Scriptures  they  turn  round  and 
accuse  these  same  Scriptures,  as  if  they  were  not 
correct  or  authoritative.  The  '  letter,'  they  allege, 
is  in  itself  ambiguous  ;  the  truth  cannot  be  ex- 
tracted from  it  by  those  who  are  ignorant  of 
tradition." 

On  the  other  hand,  when  confuted  from  that 

1  ii.  10,  2,  3. 

2  iii.  21,  3. 

^  i.  20,  1.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Irenaeus  himself  denied 
the  inspired  character  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  though  he 
quotes  from  it  (ii.  30,  9,  cfr.  Trseront:  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  229,  230).  On  the  other  hand,  he  regarded  The  Shepherd 
and  The  Epistle  oj  Clement  as  Sacred  Scripture. 

^  iii.  11,  7. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  175 

tradition  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  the 
apostles,  through  the  successions  of  presbyters 
in  the  churches,  they  claim  to  be  wiser  than  either 
presbyters  or  apostles.  '  The  apostles,'  they  say, 
'  had  not  attained  to  the  perfect  gnosis.'  ^  These 
men  will  follow  neither  Scripture  nor  tradition. - 

Effective  Rule  of  Faith. — The  "  letter  "  is,  there- 
fore, insufficient  as  a  rule  of  faith.  To  deal 
effectively  with  heretics,  we  must  confront  them 
with  the  apostolic  tradition.^  In  interpreting  Holy 
Writ  we  must  allow  ourselves  to  be  guided  by  the 
"  presbyters "  among  whom  is  the  apostolic 
doctrine,  4  and  "  who  expound  the  Scriptures  to 
us  without  danger."  ^ 

The  "  traditio  "  has  come  down  to  us  from  the 
apostles  through  the  successions  of  bishops.  It  is, 
therefore,  to  be  found  in  the  important  churches  ; 
or,  to  be  accurate,  in  those  churches  of  apostolic 
origin  in  which  the  episcopal  lines  have  remained 
unbroken.^ 

1  iii.  12,  7. 

2  ib.  1,  2. 

^  "  Ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio  "  (iii.  3). 

4  iv.  32,  1. 

^  ib.  26,  5.  And  yet  Irenaeus  himself,  interpreting  the 
gospel  narrative  "  in  company  with  the  presb3;i:ers  "  sets  down 
the  duration  of  Christ's  public  ministry  as  from  ten  to  twenty 
years.  Whom  then,  he  asks,  are  we  to  believe  ;  those  who, 
ignoring  the  presbyters,  say  that  Christ  died  a  young  man,  or 
those  who,  with  the  presbyters,  maintain  that  He  was  more 
than  fifty  years  old  when  He  suffered  ?  (iii.  22). 

6  iii.  3,  1. 


176  THE  ADVERStJS  HAERESES 

We  need  not,  however,  examine  the  Usts  in  the 
case  of  all  the  churches.  It  suffices  to  establish 
the  continuity  of  the  succession  in  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Irenaeus  explains:  "Since  it  would  be 
tedious  ...  to  reckon  the  successions  in 
all  the  churches,  we  confute  all  those  who  for  any 
reason  (through  self-pleasing,  or  vainglory,  or 
through  blindness  and  perverse  opinion)  assemble 
in  unauthorized  meetings,  ^  [we  confute  all  such 
men  I  say]  by  pointing  to  the  tradition  which 
the  greatest  and  most  ancient  and  universally 
known  church, — founded  at  Rome  by  the  two 
most  glorious  apostles  Peter  and  Paul — ^holds  from 
the  apostles  ;  and  the  faith  which  has  been  proposed 
to  men  and  which  has  come  down  to  our  time 
through  the  episcopal  successions." - 

The  Roman  doctrine  is,  therefore,  the  catholic 
doctrine.  He  proceeds  at  once  to  give  the  reason  : 
^^  Ad  hanc  enim  ecclesiam  propter  potentiorem 
(potiorem)  principalitatem  necesse  est  omnem  con- 
venire  ecclesiam  hoc  est  eos  qui  sunt  undique  fideleSf 
in  qua  semper  ah  his  qui  sunt  undique  conservata 
est  ea  quae  est  ah  apostolis  traditio  "  ^ 

Let  us  first  remark  on  some  individual  words 
and  expressions  in  this  much-disputed  passage : 

"  Principalitatem.''^ — Many  attempts  have  been 

^  "  Praeterquam  oportet  colligunt." — The  last  word  is  prob- 
ably an  awkward  rendering  of  an  original  Trapaxrvvdyova-tv 
{cjr.  Migne  in  loc). 

2  iii.  3,  2. 

3  iii.  2. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  177 

made  to  conjecture  the  original.  Bishop  Words- 
worth suggests  apxaiOTtj^ ;  ^  others,  with  Migne, 
TTpun-elov  {irpiare'ta.)  ;  others  again,  with  Harnack,^ 
avOevTia.  The  first  of  these  suggestions  scarcely 
recommends  itself.  The  author's  criterion  of 
orthodoxy  is,  properly  speaking,  apostolicity 
rather  than  primitiveness.  Besides  the  Roman 
Church  was  not  the  most  ancient  of  the  apostolic 
churches.  Bishop  Wordsworth  appeals  to  chapter 
V,  verses  14  and  21  as  supporting  his  conjecture  ; 
but  in  both  texts  the  original  was  probably 
riye/uLovia  rather  than  dpxaiorr]?,  as  appears  from 
iii.  11,  8,  where  an  original  irpSiTov  ^wov  i^yenoviKov 
is  rendered :  "  primum  animal  principale."  As 
between  the  other  two — Trpwreiov  and  avQevrla  — 
it  is  more  difficult  to  decide.  Irenaeus  uses  the 
former  of  the  Divine  principality  in  iv.  38,  3  ^  ; 
while  in  i.  31,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Latin  "  a 
superiore  principalitate  "  represents  an  original  eV 
-7-^9  avwdev  avOevTia?.'^  It  sccms  bcst,  therefore, 
leaving  open  the  question  as  to  the  exact  original, 
to  render  "  principalitatem "  by  "  power," 
"  authority,"  or,  as  Hamack  suggests,^  "  sovereign 
authority."  ® 

1  St.  Hippolytus  and  the  Church  of  Rome  :  p.  285. 

2  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  vol.  ii,  p.  157  n.  In  a  paper  read  before 
the  Royal  Prussian  Academy  of  Science,  Nov.  9, 1893,  Harnack 
argues  with  much  force  for  an  original  avdivrla. 

^  Gr.  :  7r/>WT€T5ei  kv  iraarLV  6  Oios. 

*  cfr.  Migne  in  loc.  ^  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  loc.  cit. 

e  cfr.  1  Tim.  ii.  12  ;  Tert.  Adv.  Valent.  iv. 


178  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

Necesse  est. — Of  itself  the  phrase  may  imply 
any  one  of  three  distinct  kinds  of  necessity  : 

(a)  moral  (.  .  every  church  is  bound  to  "  con- 
vene "  to  Rome)  ; 

(6)  logical  {.  .  because  of  .  .  .  it  follows  that 
every  church  "  convenes  "  .  .) ; 

(c)  "  ipso  facto "  (.  .  every  church  which  is 
orthodox  by  that  very  fact''  convenes  ".  .). 

Convenire    ad. — Here,   too,  we    discover    three 
possible  interpretations  : 

(a)  "  come  to  "  (.  .  every  church  must  come  to 

that  of  Rome)  ; 
(6)  "  agree  with  "  (.  .  every  church  must  agree 

with  that  of  Rome) ; 
(c)  "  have  recourse  to  "  (.  .  every  church  must 

have  recourse  to  Rome  [with  a  view  to 

conformity  with  her]). 

Omnem  ecclesiam  =  unamquamque  eccl.  =  every 
church.* 

* 
Let  us  now  consider  the  passage  as  a  whole, 
which  Protestants  generally  interpret  thus :  The 
Church  of  Rome  was  the  central  church  of  Christen- 
dom. Rome  was  the  heart  of  the  Empire,  the 
world's  metropolis.  All  roads  led  thither.  The 
Roman  Church  held  as  regards  doctrine  a  position 
of  vantage.    Meeting  and  conversing  with  brethren 

1  c^r.  iii.  3,  1. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  179 

from  the  ends  of  the  earth  her  members  and 
hierarchy  were  able  to  compare  their  teaching  and 
practice  with  those  of  all  the  other  churches,  and  to 
adopt  what  was  best  and  purest  in  the  general 
tradition.  Hence,  as  a  doctrinal  norm,  the  Roman 
teaching  soon  came  to  be  regarded,  rightly,  as  the 
most  reliable  in  Christendom.  In  this  view  the 
passage  would  be  paraphrased :  For  to  this 
(Roman)  Church,  because  of  her  more  powerful 
principality  (being  the  Church  of  the  world's 
metropolis)  every  church — that  is,  the  faithful 
from  every  quarter — ^necessarily  (on  business,  &c.) 
'  convenes  '  ; — ^to  this  Roman  Church,  namely,  in 
which  the  apostolic  tradition  has  always  been 
preserved  by  those  who  come  to  her  from  every  quarter 
(.     .    .    in  qua  .  .  ah  his  qui  sunt  undique).^ 

But  the  interpretation  is  quite  at  variance  with 
the  context  and  the  argument.  For  Irenaeus 
every  apostolic  church  is  in  possession  of  the  true 
tradition  because  its  teaching  has  descended  to  it 
from  one  apostolic  founder  through  an  unbroken  line 
of  bishops.  "  Orthodoxy  through  episcopal  succes- 
sion "  is  his  cardinal  principle.  Is  it  likely,  then, 
that  the  passage  under  consideration  should  be 


^  This  is  practically  the  interpretation  adopted  by  Langen 
and  by  Funk  {cfr.  Revue  B^nldict.,  Oct.,  1908)  :  The  brethren 
from  all  parts  coming  to  Rome  on  business,  while  sojourning 
in  the  capital,  compared  their  doctrines  and  practices  with 
those  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  thus  conserved  in  her  the 
Cathohc  doctrine  transmitted  by  the  apostles  to  the  churches 
everywhere.    Harnack  sets  the  interpretation  aside  as  unlikely. 


180  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

interpreted  as  implying  that  the  reliability  of  the 
Roman  teaching  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  influence 
of  the  faithful  from  every  quarter  ?  Has  Irenaeus 
thrown  his  principles  overboard  ?  No  ;  having 
established  historically  the  continuity  of  the  Roman 
bishops,  he  infers  therefrom  the  soundness  of  the 
Roman  teaching  :  "  In  this  order/'  he  writes, "  and 
by  this  succession  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  from 
the  apostles  and  the  preaching  of  the  word  have 
come  down  to  us  "  ;  and  at  once  he  goes  on  to 
cite  other  apostolic  churches  ^  whose  doctrines  are 
sound  and  for  a  similar  reason. 

"  Ad  banc  .  .  .  ecclesiam  .  .  .  necesse  est 
omnem  convenire  ecclesiam  (hoc  est  eos  qui  sunt 
undique  fideles)  in  qua  semper  ab  his  qui  sunt 
undique  conservata  est  ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis 
traditio."  On  this  Hamack  remarks:  "In 
common  with  most  scholars  I  used  to  think  that 
the  '  in  quxi '  refers  to  '  Roman  Church  *  {hanc 
ecclesiam) ;  but  I  have  now  convinced  myseK  that 
it  relates  to  *  omnem  ecclesiam,''  and  that  the 
clause  introduced  by  '  in  qua '  merely  asserts 
that  every  church  in  so  far  as  she  is  faithful — i.e., 
orthodox,  must  as  a  matter  of  course  agree  with 
Rome.  .  .  .  The  *  must '  (necesse  est)  is  not 
meant  as  an  imperative,  but  =  avdyKri  =  '  it  can- 
not be  otherwise.'  "  ^  He  renders :  The  other 
churches  [i.e.,  the  faithful  everywhere)  will  neces- 

1  Those  of  Smyrna  and  Ephesus  (iii.  3,  4). 

2  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  vol.  i,  p.  231. 


THE  AD  VERSUS  HAERESES  181 

sarily  find  themselves  in  agreement  with  the 
Roman  Church  by  the  very  fact  that,  in  them, 
the  faithful  everywhere  have  preserved  the  true 
apostolic  tradition. 

Hamack's  view  is  rejected  by  Funk  as  involving 
an  "  impossible  tautology";  Friedrich  and  others 
call  it  "  absurd."  Its  very  awkwardness  condemns 
it ;  and  it  fails  to  explain  why  the  alleged  ipso  facto 
agreement  is  attributed  to  a  potior  principalitas 
in  an  apostolic  church. 

A  more  generally  received  interpretation  con- 
nects "  in  qua "  with  "  hanc  (Romanam)  ecde- 
siam  "  .•  "  Every  church  must  agree  with  this 
(Roman)  Church  in  which  the  apostolic  tradition 
has  always  been  preserved."  But  the  old  diffi- 
culty recurs ;  it  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of 
Irenaeus  to  state  that  the  apostolic  tradition 
has  been  conserved  in  the  Roman  Church  hy 
outsiders,  Bardenhewer  translates  "  in  qua  "  by 
"in  communion  with  which;  "^  and  Tixeront 
suggests :  "in  and  through  which,"  ^  but  neither 
rendering  is  acceptable.  They  seem  to  obviate  a 
serious  difficulty  by  doing  violence  to  the  text. 
Others  retain  the  "in"  and  explain  as  follows: 
The  other  churches  {i.e.,  the  faithful  everywhere) 
by  the  fact  that  they  have  remained  in  communion 
with  her,  have  always  preserved  in  the  Roman 
Church  the  apostolic  tradition.^     The  solution  is 


^  op.  cit.,  p.  121.  2  u^gi  qJ  Dogm.,  vol.  i,  p.  231. 

2  cfr.  Revue  Bened.,  xxv.,  pp.  515  sqq. 


182  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

ingenious,  but  scarcely  satisfactory ;  it  leaves  us 
the  '  impossible  tautology '  involved  in  the  second 
"  qui  sunt  undique,''  and  in  addition  fails  to  take 
account  of  the  general  argumentation. 

Dom  Morin  suggests  an  emendation  of  the  clause 
beginning :  "  m  qua  .  .  ."  As  it  stands  the 
whole  reads :  "ad  hanc  ecclesiam  .  .  .  necesse 
est  omnem  convenire  ecclesiam,  hoc  est  eos  qui 
sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper,  ab  his  qui 
sunt  undique,  conservata  est  ea  quae  est  ab 
apostolis  traditio."  The  second  "  sunt  undique,^' 
he  conjectures,  slipped  into  the  MS.  through  an 
error  of  the  copyist,  who,  having  just  transcribed 
the  words  "  sunt  undique  "  after  the  first  "  qui,'' 
inadvertently  repeated  them  after  the  second 
"  qui  "  instead  of  some  such  words  as  "  ibi  praefu- 
erunt.""  As  reconstructed,  the  passage  reads : 
"  Every  church  must  agree  with  the  Roman 
Church  ...  in  which  the  apostolic  tradition  has 
always  been  preserved  by  her  rulers."  Dom 
Morin' s  suggestion  obviates  the  great  difficulty 
which  must  be  faced  by  anyone  who  connects 
"  in  qua  "  with  "  hanc  ecclesiam.'" 

Reconstruction  in  this  case  is  not  a  deus  ex 
inachina ;  the  passage  really  demands  it.  All 
suggested  explanations  of  the  words  as  they  stand 
have  proved  unsatisfactory.  Not  one  of  them  has 
succeeded  in  harmonizing  with  the  general  argu- 
mentation. Further,  in  any  view  which  retains 
the  original  text,  the  repetition  of  the  words  "  sunt 
undique "    is  tautological   and   purposeless.      We 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  183 

note,  finally,  that  '  slips '  are  rather  numerous  in 
the  "  Adversus  haereses.'''  Dom  Morin  instances 
several  texts  in  which  words  have  been  erroneously 
transcribed  or  repeated.^  Hence  on  purely  critical 
grounds  we  seem  to  be  justified  in  erasing  the 
second  '  sunt  undique  '  as  intrusive. 

This  done,  our  task  of  interpreting  the  whole 
becomes  comparatively  easy.  The  intrusive  clause 
may  be  a  substitution  or  a  pure  addition.^  If  the 
latter,  it  seems  best  to  take  '  ab  his  '  as  synonymous 
with  "  deinde  "  (  =  from  the  time  of  the  apostles) : 
"  The  tradition  handed  down  by  the  apostles  has 
always  from  their  time  been  conserved  in  the 
Church  of  Rome." 

On  the  whole,  however,  it  appears  more  likely 
that  the  clause  is  a  substitution.  An  examination 
of  the  author's  usual  practice  in  discussing  the 
apostolic  tradition'^  and  a  consideration  of  his 
general  principles  would  lead  one  to  expect,  ante- 
cedently, that  the  Roman  bishops  should  have 
been  referred  to  as  guardians  of  the  traditio.  In 
fine,  the  accidental  substitution  of  the  intrusive 
words  for  some  such  words  as  "  ibi  praefuerunt " 
can  be  readily  understood  if  we  suppose  that,  in 


1  cfr.  i.  14.  1  {esse)  ;  ii.  31.  3  {conversationem)  ;  iii.  19.  3 
(ewm.) ;  iv.  21.  1  {'propter  repromissionem  Dei). 

2  In  which  case  it  was  probably  a  deliberate  insertion  to 
explain  the  obscure  "  ab  his." 

3  cfr.  i.  10.  2  ;  iii.  2.  2  ;  i6.  3.  1,  3  ;  iv.  26.  2-5  ;  ib.  33.  8  ; 
V.  20.  1. 

Q 


184  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

the  original  MS.  both  clauses  occupied  correspond- 
ing positions  in  consecutive  lines,  thus : 

Ad  hanc  enim  ecclesiam  propter  potiorem 
principalitatem  necesse  est  omnem  convenire 
ecclesiam  hoc  est  eos  qui  sunt  undique 
fideles  in  qua  semper  ab  his  qui  ****** 
conservata  est.    .    .    .^ 

There  remains  the  "  potentior  principalitas  :  " 
We  have  already  decided  that  Irenaeus  selects  the 
Church  of  Rome  as  a  type  of  apostolic  church. 
Typical  she  is,  but  more  than  typical.  All  apostolic 
churches — for  Irenaeus,  I  mean — ^have  a  doctrinal 
principalitas,  in  virtue  of  which  their  decisions  are 
more  authoritative  than  those  of  other  churches.^ 
The  Church  of  Rome,  being  apostolic,  has,  there- 
fore, a  principalitas  ;  hut  hers  is  a  principalitas 
which  is  potentior ;  she  is  possessed  of  pre-eminent 
authority  by  reason  of  which  every  church  must 
conform  to  her  teaching. 

Irenaeus  had  thus  a  special  reason  for  examining 
the  episcopal  succession  of  the  Roman  rather  than 
that  of  any  other  apostolic  church.  "  Doubtless," 
writes  Harnack,  "  his  reference  to  the  Roman 
Church  is  introduced  in  such  a  way  that  she  is 
merely  mentioned  by  way  of  example  ;  just  as  he 

^  cfr.  Revue  Benedict,  loc.  cit. 

2  "  Hence  if  there  arise  a  dispute  relative  to  some  important 
question  among  us  we  should  have  recourse  to  the  most 
ancient  churches  with  which  the  apostles  held  intercourse  {in 
quibus  apostoli  conversati  sunt),  and  learn  from  them  what  is 
certain  and  clear  in  regard  to  the  question  at  issue.  Would 
not  this  have  been  our  sole  method  of  adjusting  doctrinal 
differences  had  the  apostles  written  nothing  ?  "  (iii.  4.  1). 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  185 

also  adds  the  allusion  to  Smyrna  and  Ephesus ; 
but  there  is  quite  as  little  doubt  tliat  this  example 
was  no  arbitrary  selection.  The  truth  rather  is  that 
the  Roman  community  must  have  been  named 
because  its  decision  was  '  already '  the  most 
authoritative  and  impressive  in  Christendom."  ^ 

1  The  word  "  already  "  is  important.  Harnack  assigns  an 
eminently  "  natural  "  basis  for  the  de  facto  primacy  which  he 
here  admits.  The  Church  of  the  world's  metropolis,  he  informs 
us,  was  at  this  time  wealthy  and  influential.  It  was  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  all  communities,  especially  so  long  as 
they  required  financial  aid,  to  be  in  connexion  with  that  of 
Rome,  to  receive  support  from  her,  and  to  have  the  power  of 
recommending  prisoners  and  those  who  pined  in  the  mines 
to  her  influential  intervention.  Fellowship  with  the  Roman 
Church  was  "  valuable."  It  was  to  be  expected,  however,  that, 
as  a  necessary  condition  of  mutual  fellowship,  she  would 
require  other  communities  to  recognize  the  law  (doctrinal  and 
disciplinary,  we  presume)  by  which  she  regulated  her  own 
"  circumstances  "  ;  and  so  we  find  that  during  the  second  and 
third  centuries  many  individuals  and  communities  turned  to 
Rome  in  order  to  testify  their  "  orthodoxy."  This  and  other 
causes  (enumerated  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  vol.  i,  p.  159)  combined 
to  convert  the  Christian  communities  into  a  real  confederation 
under  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church. 

Such,  in  substance,  is  Harnack's  theory.  As  we  have  already 
I  hope,  satisfied  ourselves  that  the  "  See  of  Peter  "  was  from 
the  beginning  not  only  de  facto,  but  de  iure  primatial,  we  do 
not  feel  called  upon  to  examine  at  any  length  this  fanciful 
explanation  of  a  primacy  which,  as  Harnack  himself  concedes, 
was  "  already  "  acknowledged  by  Christendom  in  the  time  of 
Irenaeus.  The  language  of  the  passage  under  discussion,  as 
well  as  the  entire  context  and  argumentation,  imply  that  all 
churches  conformed  to  the  Roman,  not  because  her  fellow- 
ship was  "  valuable"  in  the  sense  explained,  but  because  her 
teaching  was  more  reliable  and  authoritative  than  that  of  any 
other  church. 


186  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

What,  then,  is  the  argument  of  the  passage  "  ad 
hanc  enim  ecclesiam.  .  ."  ?  It  is  a  question  more 
readily  put  than  answered  ;  but  there  are  two 
interpretations  which  seem  to  be,  let  us  say,  less 
unsatisfactory  than  others  that  have  been  sug- 
gested. One  connects  "in  qua"  with  "hanc 
ecclesiam,"  the  other  with  "  omnem  ecclesiam."  ^ 

Accepting  Dom  Morin's  emendation  we  connect 
"  in  qua  "  with  "  hanc  ecclesiam  "  and  render  the 
passage  :  "  For  every  church  {i.e.,  the  faithful  from 
every  quarter)  must  ^  conform  to  ^  the  Roman 
Church  because  of  her  pre-eminent  authority 
( — the  Roman  Church)  in  which  the  apostolic 
tradition  has  always  been  preserved  by  her  rulers." 

But  if  the  reconstruction  be  ruled  out  of  court, 
we  are,  I  fancy,  forced  *  to  connect  '  in  qua '  with 


1  Duchesne,  Funk,  and  Harnack  (latterly)  connect  in  qua 
with  omnem  ecclesiam. 

2  We  have  already  sho%vn  that  there  is  not  question  of  mere 
ipso  facto  necessity.  If  "  necesse  est  "  represents  an  original 
f)c7  there  is  question  of  moral  necessity  (every  church  is 
bound  to  conform  to  Rome)  ;  if  the  original  was  avajKr]  the 
necessity  is  merely  logical  {it  follows  that  every  church  conforms 
to  Rome).  The  use  of  "  necesse  est  "  in  v.  30.  1,  where  the 
original  was  ei's  avryv  kji7rea-e.iv  dvdyKr]  rov  toiovtov  leads 
us  to  think  that  here,  too,  the  original  was  probably 
dvdyKTj  rather  than  Set. 

•^  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  "  convenire.''  Irenaeus  in 
the  next  chapter  uses  "  recurrere  "  as  signif3ang  "  to  conform  to." 

■*  To  avoid  the  inconvenience  of  implying  that  orthodoxy 
is  maintained  in  the  Roman  Church  {in  qua)  by  outsiders 
{ab  his  qui  sunt  undique).  We  have  already  criticised  the  ren- 
derings suggested  by  Bardenhewer,  Tixeront  and  others. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  187 

'  omnem  ecclesiam  '  and  interpret :  For  with  this 
church,  because  of  her  pre-eminent  authority,  every 
church  {i.e.,  the  faithful  from  every  quarter)  in 
which  the  apostolic  tradition  has  always  been 
preserved  (by  the  faithful  from  every  quarter) 
must  agree."  ^ 

General  Argument  of  the  Passage. — To  heresy 
Irenaeus  opposes  the  catholic  tradition.  This,  he 
asserts,  is  found  m  the  apostolic  churches.  As  a 
type  of  apostolic  church  he  selects  the  Roman, 
and  establishes  historically  the  continuity  of  her 
episcopal  succession.  But  he  selects  her  not  merely 
as  a  type.  Like  all  apostolic  churches,  the  Ecclesia 
Romana  has  a  principalitas  ;  but  as  distinct  from 
them  she  has  a  potentior  principalitas  by  reason 
of  which  every  church  must  conform  to  her. 

Heretics  are,  therefore,  confounded  by  the 
Roman  teaching,  first  because  it  is  the  true 
tradition  {proof:  the  line  of  Roman  bishops  is 
unbroken)  ;  and  secondly  because  it  is  the  catholic 
teaching  {proof  :  all  the  churches  must  agree  with 
her).  Irenaeus  selects  an  apostolic  church  because 
apostolicity  is  a  guarantee  of  orthodoxy ;  he  selects 
the  Roman  rather  than  any  other  apostolic  church 
because  her  teaching  is  catholic. 

In  practice  the  church  of  the  metropolis  was 
regarded    by    all    Christians    as    constituting    a 

*  Those  who  hold  for  this  interpretation  have  to  explain 
why  the  expression  "  qui  sunt  undique  "  is  so  awkwardly 
repeated,  and  also  why  "  undique  "  is  not  "  uhique." 


1S8  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

primatial  see.  Even  Harnack  concedes  that  her 
decision  was  "  already "  regarded  as  the  most 
authoritative  in  Christendom.  ^  Her  primacy  was 
acknowledged  not  alone  by  the  faithful  from  every 
quarter,  but  even  by  heretics.-  Irenaeus  himself 
acknowledged  it.^ 

It  is  only  when  he  sets  himself  to  theorize  about 
criteria  of  orthodoxy,  that  he  becomes  obscure. 
His  primordial  principle  seems  to  be  that  apostoli- 
city  in  aiiy  individual  church  guarantees  the 
teaching  in  that  church.  Theoretically,  this 
principle  may  imply  a  denial  of  a  doctrinal  primacy 
to  any  see  ;  but,  if  this  be  so,  Irenaeus  appears  not 
to  have  adverted  to  the  fact  until,  in  pursuance  of 
his  principle,  he  came  to  examine  a  type  of 
apostolic  church.  Then  the  figure  of  the  Roman 
Church  loomed  large  before  him.  She  had  a 
doctrinal  primacy.  Irenaeus  liimseK  acknow- 
ledged it  in  practice  ;  Christendom  acknowledged 
it.  The  principle  of  the  Roman  primacy  had, 
therefore,  to  be  upheld  hy  him  side  by  side 
with  his  theory  of  "  apostolicity  a  guarantee  of 
orthodoxy  "  ;  and  so,  while,  consistently  with  his 
primordial  principle,  he  attributes  the  orthodox}^ 
of  the  teachiQg  found  m  the  Roman  Church  to  her 

1  V.  supra. 

2  cjr.  Batiffol :  op.  clt.,  p.  208 ;  Harnack  :  Hist,  of  Dogm. : 
vol.  cit.,  pp.  159,  159  ;  Mission,  vol.  i,  pp.  370  sqq. 

^  cjr.  his  journey  to  Rome  as  representative  of  the  clergy 
of  Lyons  and  of  Vienne  {swpra),  and  his  letter  to  Pope  Victor 
regarding  the  Paschal  controversy  (infra). 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  189 

apostolic  foundation  plus  the  continuity  of  her 
episcopal  succession  ;  inconsistently,  it  may  be,^ 
with  the  same  principle,  he  ascribes  to  her  teaching 
a  higher  degree  of  reliability  than  attached  to 
that  of  other  apostolic  churches  ;  and  argues  that, 
in  consequence  of  her  potentior  principalitas,  the 
teaching  of  all  the  churches  must  square  with  hers. 
The  reasoning  perhaps  is  defective  ;  its  coherency 
may  be  questioned  ;  but  consistently  or  incon- 
sistently, he  proclaims  the  Roman  primacy.^ 

In  his  interesting  work  on  St.  Hippolytus, 
Bishop  Wordsworth  has  something  to  say  to  the 
"  Romish "  interpretation  of  this  celebrated 
passage.     Let  us  briefly  review  his  criticism. 

"  The  inference  (that  all  men  are  bound  to 
submit  to  the  Church  of  Rome)  is,"  he  writes,  "  at 
variance  with  the  drift  of  the  argument.  St. 
Irenaeus  is  refuting  heretics  by  an  appeal  to  the 

1  Irenaeus  lays  it  down  that  every  unbroken  line  of  bishops 
reaching  back  to  the  apostles  is  a  channel  of  the  true  tradition  ; 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  every  individual  channel  conveys 
the  stream  in  full  measure  and  with  perfect  purity,  although 
at  first  sight  this  might  seem  to  be  implied  by  passages  like 
iii.  3.  1,  2,  4  ;  iii.  4  ;  iv.  26.  2  ;  ib.  5. 

2  Duchesne  sums  up  the  import  of  the  entire  passage  as 
follows  :  "II  est  difficile  de  trouver  une  expression  plus  nette  : 

(a)  De  I'unite  doctrinale  dans  I'Eglise  universelle  ; 

(6)  De    I'importance    souveraine,    unique,    del'    figlise 

romaine  comme  temoin  gardienne  et  organe  de  la 

tradition  apostolique, 
(c)  De  sa  preeminence  superieure  dans  I'ensemble  des 

chretientes  (Eqlises  S^parles,  pp.  118,  119). 


190  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

witness  of  the  Church  Universal.  He  has  selected 
one  church  as  an  exponent  of  that  testimony.  The 
church  so  selected  is  the  Church  of  Rome.  He 
argues  that  in  appealing  to  the  Church  of  Rome  he 
has  virtually  collected  the  witness  of  all.     .     .     ." 

True ;  but  how  does  Irenaeus  show  that  the  teach- 
mg  of  the  Roman  Church  represents  that  of  all  the 
churches  ?  "  By  reminding  them,"  Dr.  Wordsworth 
replies,  "  that  the  succession  of  Roman  bishops 
from  Peter  and  Paul  to  his  time  was  unbroken." 

We  have  made  it  clear,  we  hope,  that  the 
saint's  immediate  purpose  in  establishing  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  episcopal  succession  in  the  Roman 
Church,  was  to  infer  therefrom  not  the  catholicity 
but  rather  the  orthodoxy  of  her  teachmg.  The 
orthodox  faith  w^as,  of  course,  catholic  as  well ;  but 
then  its  catholicity  followed,  not  from  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  Roman  succession,  but  rather  from 
the  oneness  of  the  apostolic  tradition,  and  from 
the  fact  that  all  the  churches  must  conform 
to  Rome.  Hence,  having  traced  the  unbroken 
line  of  bishops  from  Linus  to  Eleutherus,  he 
proceeds  at  once  to  infer,  not  the  identity  of 
catholic  with  Roman  doctrine,  but  simply  the 
truth  of  the  latter.  "  In  this  order,"  he  writes, 
"  and  by  this  succession  the  apostolic  tradition 
which  is  in  the  Church  and  the  true  preaching  have 
come  down  to  us."  ^    The  "  Church  "  is  either  the 

^  Gr.  ry  avTrj  rd^et  /cat  ry  oLvrrj  ^laho^  rJT€  dTrb  twv  aTrocTToAajv 
ev  TTj  e K *( Albert ^t  irapaSocrts  /cat  to  ttjs  aX')]0€ias  K-qpvyjxa  Kan^vTrjKev 
ek  ^[ids  {cfr.  Hegesippug  infra). 


THE  ABVERSUS  HAERESES  191 

Roman  Church,  of  which  he  has  just  been  speaking, 
or  the  Church  Universal. 

*'  What  does  he  say,"  Dr.  Wordsworth  proceeds 
to  inquire,  "  in  the  words  :  '  ad  hanc  ecclesiani 
propter  potentioreni  prmcipaUtatem  necesse  est 
oninem  convenire  ecclesiani  hoc  est  omnes  (sic)  qui 
sunt  undique  fideles  ?  '"  .  .  .  "  It  is  not  stated," 
he  replies,  "  that  every  one,  then  and  for  ever  after 
must  submit  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  No.  If  that 
had  been  true,  then,  he  would  not  have  said  tliat 
*  because  it  would  be  tedious  to  appeal  to  all  churches ' 
he  would,  therefore,  appeal  to  one  church — the 
Church  of  Rome.  Such  a  statement  would  have 
been  absurd  if  Rome  had  been  supreme  over  all 
churches  and  if  all  churches  were  bound  to  conform 
to  her.    .    .    ." 

To  which  we  reply  that  the  statem.ent  in  question 
becomes  perfectly  intelligible  the  moment  we  admit 
that  Irenaeus  selected  the  Church  of  Rome  as  a 
type  of  apostolic  church. 

"  .  .  .  It  is  possible,  and  almost  certain,"  he 
continues,  "  that  where  we  now  read  in  the  Latin 
'  necesse  est,'  St.  Irenaeus  wrote  avdyKri,'" 
Granted.  "  The  Greek  word  avdyKri,  it  is  well 
known,  often  implies  a  reasonable  inference  ('  it 
follows  that  .  .  .  '),  not  a  moral  obligation." 
Also  granted.  "...  Hence  Irenaeus  did  not 
affirm  any  moral  obligation  constraining  all  men  to 
submit  to  the  Church  of  Rome.    .    .    ." 

But,  we  ask,  what  did  he  afifirm  ?  On  Dr. 
Wordsworth's  own  showing  he  declared  that  all 


192  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

churches  conform  to  Rome,  and  that  this  general 
conformity  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  her 
potentior  principaHtas.  That  the  expression 
"  necesse  est  "  does  not,  of  itself,  necessarily  imply 
moral  obUgation  Ave  admit. 

"  .  .  .  Romish  divines,"  he  adds,  "  base 
their  doctrine  of  the  primacy  upon  the  alleged 
foundation  of  the  Roman  Church  by  St.  Peter. ^ 
Irenaeus  on  the  other  hand  attributes  her  potentior 
principaHtas  to  her  foundation  by  SS.  Peter  and 
Paul." 

This  portion  of  the  learned  prelate's  criticism 
is  quite  irrelevant.  The  passage  under  discussion 
proclaims  the  doctrinal  primacy  of  the  Roman 
Church.  This  we  undertake  to  show,  and  nothing 
further.  That  she  owes  that  primacy  exclusively 
to  St.  Peter  is  neither  affirmed  nor  denied  by 
Irenaeus.-  It  is  \Aorthy  of  note,  however,  that,  in 
a  later  chapter,  the  saint  assigns  as  the  reason  of 
the  doctrinal  disunion  among  heretics  and  schis- 


1  The  statement  is  inaccurate.  '  Romish  '  divines  do  not 
base  the  doctrme  of  the  primacy  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
Roman  Church  by  St.  Peter,  but  rather  upon  his  episcopacy 
in  that  Church.  With  all  the  early  fathers,  including  Irenaeus 
himself,  we  hold  that,  whereas  the  Roman  Church  was  founded 
by  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  Peter  alone  was  the  first  Roman 
bishop  {cfr.  supra,  ch.  v,  p.  1) 

2  "  .  .  .  The  special  importance  which  Irenaeus  claims  for 
the  Roman  Church  ...  is  not  merely  based  by  him  on  her 
assumed  foundation  bj^  Peter  and  Paul,  but  on  a  combination 
of  the  four  attributes  '  maxima,''  '  antiquissima,'  "  etc. 
(Harnack  :  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  vol.  i,  p.  157  n). 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  '       193 

matics  the  fact  that  "  they  have  not  been  founded 
on  the  one  rock.''''  How  strangely  like  an  echo  of 
Matthew  xvi.  Irenaeus,  we  should  add,  was  a 
close  student  of  the  first  Gospel.  ^ 

Christianity  a  Deposit, — ^The  Church  is  the  sole 
reliable  repository  of  the  apostolic  tradition.  In 
her  is  found  the  true  creed  or  symbol  {Kufcop  rrj^ 
dXtjOela^).^   The  Kavcou  is  unchangeable  (a/cAtj/?/?).^ 

She  holds  not  only  the  symbol  or  summary  of 
defined  teaching  but  the  entire  deposit :  "  Like  a 
rich  man  depositing  his  money  in  a  bank,  the 
apostles  lodged  in  her  hands  .  .  .  all  things 
pertaining  to  the  truth.'''  *  They  also  constituted 
her  the  sole  authoritative  exponent  of  the  deposit 
in  succession  to  themselves ;  "  so  that  every  man, 
whosoever  will,  can  draw  from  her  the  water  of 
life."  ^  The  deposit  is  conserved,  transmitted,  and 
authoritatively  interpreted,  by  the  Catholic  bishops. 
It  is  not  susceptible  of  change.® 

The  Church  the  Body  of  Christ. — The  Church  is 
a  visible  organic  unit  controlled  by  the  episcopacy. 
"  True  knowledge'  is  [derived  from]  the  teaching 
of  the  apostles,  and  the  ancient  constitution 
{a-varTtifjici^)  of   the  Churcli  in  the  whole  world,  and 

1  cfr.  iii.  i.  1  ;  ib.  9,  1-3. 

2  I.  9.  4.  Irenaeus  enumerates  the  articles  of  the  Kavwv 
{ib.  10.  1). 

3  ib.  5  ib. 

*  iii.  4.  1.  «  i.  10. 

''   Gr.  yv&arLi  aXrjO'qs. 


194  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

the  character  of  the  body  of  Christ  accordmg  to 
the  successions  of  the  bishops  into  whose  hands  the 
apostles  have  dehvered  the  Church  which  exists 
in  every  place."  ^  The  Church  Universal  is  a  single 
association  ruled  by  the  bishops  collectively.  As 
such  it  is  the  Body  of  Christ. 

The  Indwelling  of  the  Spirit. — The  Holy  Spirit 
abides  in  the  Church.  In  her  capacity  of  guardian 
and  exponent  of  the  deposit  she  is  assisted  and 
renewed  by  Him.  Sustained  by  His  abiding 
presence  she  endures  indefectible.^ 

It  is  only  the  body  of  Christ  that  is  animated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  share  in  the  Spirit  we  must 
be  members  of  the  body.  "  For  in  the  Church 
God  hath  set  apostles,  prophets,  teachers,  and  all 
the  other  means  through  which  the  Spirit  works ; 
of  Which  those  are  not  partakers  who  do  not 
belong  to  the  Church.  .  .  .  For  where  the  Church 
is  there  is  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  where  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  there  is  the  Church."  -^  All  who  belong 
to  the  Church,  and  those  only,  partake  of  the 
Spirit. 

Church  Membership. — But  who,  in  concrete,  are 
they  who  partake  of  the  Spirit  ?  Who  are  members 
of  Christ's  body  ?  .  .  .  "  The  Spirit,  Irenaeus 
replies,  "  is  the  living  water  which  the  Lord  grants 

1  iv.    33.    8.     A   difficult   sentence.     I   have   rendered   it 
literally  as  far  as  possible. 

2  iv.  31.  3. 

3  iii.  24.  1. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  195 

to  those  who  rightly  believe  in  Him  and  love  Himy  ^ 
By  '  love '  he  means  love  as  manifested  in  social 
unity.  2 

Heresy  and  Schism. — We  are  saved  through  the 
truth.  But  the  truth  has  come  down  to  us  through 
the  episcopal  succession  [SiaSoxn),  and  is  found 
only  in  the  Church.  She  alone  possesses  the  true 
tradition,  the  saving  '  wisdom  '  of  God  which  she 
preaches  everywhere.^  Hence,  to  be  saved,  we 
must  remain  within  the  Church  in  subjection  to  the 
episcopacy:  "  Wherefore  it  is  incumbent  to  obey 
the  presbyters  who  are  in  the  Church  ;  those  who, 
as  I  have  shown,  possess  the  succession  of  the 
apostles  ;  those  who  together  with  the  succession 
of  the  episcopate  have  received  the  certain  gift 
of  truth,  {charisma  certumveritatis).'^  .  .  .  Where 
the  gifts  of  the  Lord  have  been  placed,  there  it  is 
incumbent  to  learn  the  truth — namely,  from  those 
who  possess  that  succession  of  the  Church  which  is 
from  the  apostles."  ^ 

Heretics  and  schismatics  have  fallen  from  the 
truth.  The  former  "  bring  strange  fire  to  the  altar 
of  God— namely,  strange  doctrine.  They  shall  be 
burned  up  by  fire  from  heaven  as  were  Nadab  and 
Abiud.     And  such  as  rise  up  in  opposition  to  the 


1  V.  18.  2. 

2  iv.  33.  7,  8.  cfr.  Migne  in  loc.  We  shall  find  SS.  Cyprian 
and  Augustine  adopting  a  similar  mode  of  speech  {cfr.  Cypr. 
De  unit.  eccl.  xiv  ;  Aug.  De  bapt.  hi.  16,  21). 

3  V.  20.  1.  4  iv.  26.  2.  5  ii,^  5^ 


196  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

truth,  and  exhort  others  against  the  Church  of  God, 
shall  be  damned  (remanent  apud  inferos).  .  .  . 
Those  who  cleave  asunder  and  disrupt  the  unity 
of  the  Church  shall  be  punished  by  God  as  was 
Jeroboam."  ^ 

Schism  is  absolutely  inexcusable :  "  He  shall 
judge  those  who  give  rise  to  schisms,  wiio  are 
destitute  of  the  love  of  God,  and  who  look  to  their 
own  advantage  rather  than  to  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  and  who  .  .  .  cut  in  pieces  and  divide 
the  great  and  glorious  body  of  Christ.  .  .  .  The 
mischief  (i8Xa/3>;— pernicies)  of  their  schism,"  he 
adds,  "  more  than  counterbalances  any  reformation 
(KaTopOioa-i^)  which  Can  be  brought  about  by 
them."  -     Irenaeus  was  not  a  "  reformer." 

Heretics  and  schismatics  are  outside  the  Church  : 
"  He  shall  also  judge  all  those  who  are  beyond  the 
pale  of  the  truth,  that  is,  who  are  outside  the 
Church."  ^  The  saint  contrasts  heretics  with  those 
who  belong  to  the  Church — i.e.,  who  are  subject 
to  the  episcopacy.  "  Polycarp  coming  to  Rome," 
he  relates,  "  caused  many  to  turn  away  from 
heresy  to  the  Church  of  God."  ^  "  Now  all  those 
heretics,"  he  argues  in  another  place,^  "  are  of  much 
later  date  than  the  bishops  to  whom  the  apostles 
committed  the  churches.    ...    It  follows,  then, 

1  iv.  26.  2. 

2  "  Nulla  ah  eis  tanta  potest  fieri  correctio  quanta  est  schis- 
matis  pernicies  "  (iv.  33.  7). 

3  ib.  4  iii.  3.  4.  ^  V.  20.  1. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  197 

as  a  matter  of  course,  that  these  heretics,  since  they 
are  blind  to  the  truth  and  deviate  from  the  right 
way,  walk  in  various  roads,  and,  therefore,  in  the 
domain  of  doctrine  their  footsteps  are  scattered 
here  and  there  without  agreement  or  connexion. 
But  the  path  of  those  who  belong  to  the  Church 
circumscribes  the  whole  world,  as  possessing  the 
sure  tradition  from  the  apostles  and  gives  unto  us 
to  see  that  the  faith  of  all  is  one  and  the  same."  ^ 

Heretics  themselves  not  only  admit  their 
separation  from  the  Church,  but  boast  of  it.  They 
refer  to  "  those  of  the  Church "  as  being 
"  psychics,"  "  animal  "-men  who  have  not  attained 
to  the  perfect  "  gnosis."  ^  They  profess  to  have 
arrived,  by  their  reasoning  powers  and  erudition, 
at  a  grasp  of  Christian  truth,  which  the  "  psychic  " 
who  accepts  the  faith  solely  on  authority  knows 
not  of.  And  yet,  precisely  because  they  refuse  to 
accept  the  Christian  teaching  on  authority, 
precisely  because  they  refuse  to  regard  it  in  the 
light  of  an  authoritative  tradition,  the  gnostics 
"  know  much,"  but  blaspheme  God.  The  gospel 
is  a  SiSaxy']  and  not  a  "  wisdom."  ^ 

Summary. — Christianity  is  a  Kavdiv,  a  -TrapdSoa-t? 
It  is  an  authoritative  tradition  which  we  receive 

1  V.  20.  1.  The  early  Christian  writers  never  tire  of  con- 
trasting the  doctrinal  disunion  existing  among  heretics  with 
the  unity  wliich  obtains  within  the  Church. 

2  ot  xl/V\(^iKol  .  .  .  firj  TTji'  TcActai'  yvujcrii'  e^orre?  .  .  .  eti'at  8e 
TOVTOvi  OLTTO  Tfjs  'E/c/cAi^o-t'f'S  rjfJLos  X.€yov(riv, 

3  ii.  26.  1. 


198  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

from  Christ  through  the  apostles  and  their  succes- 
sors. The  dispersed  churches  constitute  one 
Church  controlled  by  the  Catholic  episcopacy  and 
with  Rome  as  rallying-centre. 

The  Church  Universal  is  the  body  of  Christ ;  we 
are  its  members.  The  Holy  Spirit  animates  the 
entire  Church  and  only  the  Church  ;  to  share  in 
the  Spirit  we  must  be  members  of  the  Body. 

Schism  is  indefensible.  Heresy,  too,  is  sinful 
and  separative  ;  heretics  are  outside  the  Church : 
"  Wherefore  it  is  incumbent  to  hold  in  suspicion 
those  who  depart  from  the  primitive  succession 
and  assemble  in  any  place  as  heretics  or  schis- 
matics." ^  We  must  guard  ourselves  lest  we  suffer 
injury  from  such.  When  they  assail  us  the  Church 
is  our  sole  safeguard.  "  Let  us  fly  to  her  and  be 
brought  up  in  her  bosom."  ^ 

Testimony  of  Hegesippus. — Hegesippus,  an 
oriental  who  lived  during  the  latter  half  of  the 
second   century,  compiled   an  historico-polemical 

work     in     five     books    entitled  :      Trevre    viro/JivrifxaTa. 

His  purpose  was  to  set  forth  in  extenso  the  orthodox 
teaching  (o  opdog  Xoyo?).  The  work  has  perished, 
with  the  exception  of  some  passages  which  have 
survived  in  Eusebius.^ 

For   Hegesippus,   as  for  his  predecessors,   the 

1  iv.  26.  2. 

2  "  .  .  .  confugere  autem  ad  ecclesiam  et  in  eiua  sinu 
educari  "  (v.  20.  2). 

3  H.  E.  iv. 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  199 

TrapdSoa-i?  is  the  norm  of  truth.  He  puts  forward 
"  the  true  tradition  of  the  apostolic  doctrine " 

(17  aTrXavrj   TrapdSocri?    tov    aTrocTToXiKov     Ktjpvyjuarog)     as 

being  the  op66^  Xoyo?/  Hence  he  visited  many 
churches  and  examined  their  doctrines ;  having 
first  satisfied  himself  as  to  the  continuity  of  the 
episcopal  succession  in  each.  In  all  apostolic 
churches  he  found  one  and  the  same  teaching.  ^ 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  Hegesippus  regarded 
apostolic  tradition  as  the  sole  norm  of  orthodoxy, 
the  purity  of  the  tradition  being  conditioned  by 
the  continuity  of  the  succession  of  bishops  in  the 
churches.  Since  the  tradition  is  one,  it  follows 
that  aU  apostolic  churches  wherein  the  episcopal 
lines  {al  SiaSoxal)  have  remained  unbroken,  have 
a  common  teaching.  Christianity  is  one  and 
apostolic. 

To  constitute  a  sect  in  an  apostolic  church  (as 
had  been  done  in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem)  is  to 
divide  the  unity  of  the  Church,  by  corrupt  doctrines 
against  God  and  against  His  Christ.^  Schism  is 
never  lawful ;  to  break  with  the  SiaSox^]  is  to 
break  with  the  6p6og  Xoyo?. 

The  Easter  Controversy  * 

The  primitive  church  was  divided  as  to  the  time 
at  which  the  festival  of  Easter  should  be  celebrated. 
We  have  already  seen  how  Polycarp  and  Pope 

1  H.  E.  iv.  8.  2.  3  ib.  22.  5,  6. 

2  ih.  21.  1.  4  circ.  191  A.D. 

P 


200  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

Anicetus  tried  in  vain  to  come  to  an  understanding 
on  the  question.^  "  The  churches  of  Asia,"  writes 
Eusebius, "  guided  by  a  remoter  tradition,  supposed 
that  they  ought  to  keep  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
moon  ;  2  .  .  .  and  it  was  incumbent  on  them  to 
make  an  end  of  the  fast  on  this  day  on  whatever 
day  of  the  week  it  should  happen  to  fall.  The 
churches  throughout  the  rest  of  the  world,  on  the 
other  hand,  did  not  terminate  the  fast  on  any  other 
day  but  the  day  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Saviour."^ 
ApostoUc  sanction  was  claimed  for  each  custom,  the 
Easterns  appealing  to  the  practice  of  SS.  John  and 
Philip,  the  others  to  that  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul. 

The  disagreement  was  felt  to  be  intolerable. 
Western  Christians  sometimes  found  themselves  in 
sack-cloth  and  ashes  at  a  time  when  their  brethren 
in  the  East  were  feasting.  "  Hence  there  were 
synods  and  episcopal  convocations  on  the  question  ; 
and  all  unanimously  decreed  .  .  .  that  the 
mystery  of  our  Lord's  Resurrection  should  be 
celebrated  on  no  other  day  than  Sunday."  ^ 

"  The  Asiatic  bishops,  however,  continued  to 
observe  the  custom  handed  down  to  them  from 
their  fathers."  ^  In  this  they  were  led  by  Poly- 
crates,  the  venerable  bishop  of  Ephesus.  A  conflict 
with  Rome  followed. 


1 

V. 

supra. 

3 

EU8. 

H. 

E. 

V. 

23. 

2 

i.e 

'.,  14th  Nisan. 

5 

ib. 

4 

ib. 

THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  201 

Pope  Victor  called  on  Polycrates  to  assemble  the 
bishops  of  Asia,  with  a  view  to  having  the  Western 
custom  adopted  throughout  the  entire  province. 
Polycrates  did  so,i  and  subsequently  forwarded  to 
the  Pope  the  decision  of  the  assembly  in  a  letter  in 
which  he  set  forth  "  the  tradition  derived  down  to 
his  own  times."  ^  "  We  observe  the  genuine  day," 
he  wrote,  "  neither  adding  to  nor  taking  from 
(the  tradition).  For  in  Asia  great  lights  have  fallen 
asleep :  Philip,  one  of  the  Twelve,  .  .  .  John, 
who  reclined  upon  the  bosom  of  the  Lord,  .  .  . 
Polycarp,  bishop  and  martyr,  .  .  .  Thraseas  of 
Eumenia; — all  these  observed  the  feast  on  the 
fourteenth  day,  introducing  no  innovations,  but 
exactly  following  the  rule  of  faith."  ^  For  Poly- 
crates, therefore,  it  was  a  clear  case  of  Victor 
versus  the  KavQ)v  ;  and  to  "  conform  "  was  to  disobey 
God.  "  I,  therefore,  .  .  .  am  not  at  all  alarmed 
at  those  things  w^hich  are  threatened  *  in  order  to 
intimidate  me.^  For  they  who  are  greater  than  I 
have  said :  '  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men.'  ...  I  could  also  mention  the  bishops 
that  were  present,  whom  you  asked  me  to  summon 
and  whom  I  did  summon."  *    It  was  a  flat  refusal. 

1  In  itself  a  noteworthy  fact. 

2  Ti)v  €ts  axnhv  kX6ovcra.v  TrapaSoa-iv. 

^  jxrjSkv  7rapeKJ3oitvovTe'5,  dAAa  Kara  tov  Kavova  ttJs  Trt'crTews 
OLKoXovOovvTes. 

*   ov  TTTvpofxai  Itti  Tots  KaTaTrX'qcriTOfji.evois. 

6  Implying,  as  we  shall  see,  that  Victor  had  threatened 
''non-conformists  "  with  excommunication. 

6  ib. 


202  THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES 

Punishment  followed.  "  Upon  this  Victor 
endeavoured  to  cut  off  as  heterodox  from  the 
common  society  ^ — and  not  merely  from  the  Roman 
communion — ^the  churches  of  all  Asia,  together 
with  the  neighbouring  churches ;  and  he  sent 
letters  abroad  proclaiming  that  all  the  brethren 
there  were  excommunicated  {aKoivwvnTovq).  Some 
of  the  bishops,  however,  who  did  not  approve 
of  2  this  step,  immediately  exhorted  him  to  contem- 
plate that  course  which  was  calculated  to  promote 
peace,  unity,  and  fraternal  charity."  ^ 

The  bishop  of  Rome  claimed  the  power  to  cut  off 
churches  from  the  catholic  communion.  The 
claim  was  suffered  to  pass  unchallenged,  although 
the  principle  involved  was  patent.  Several  of  the 
bishops  did  not  like  his  action  ;  many  expostu- 
lated ;  *  some  rebuked  him  sharply ;  ^  in  their 
judgment  he  should  have  acted  more  forbearingly. 
But  his  power  to  excommunicate  the  churches  no 

1  aTrorkfivi.LV  ws  o.v  Ire/aoSo^oiVas  t^s  Koti'/)s  Ivwo-fcos. 

2  aAA'ou  iraari  ye  Tois  €7rtcrK07rots  ravr^  'rjpecrKeTO  :  (Lat. 
"  Sed  hoc  non  omnibus  placebat  episcopis  ").  The  current 
Protestant  translation  :  "  But  this  was  not  the  opinion  of 
all  the  bishops  "  is  unfair.  The  word  apka-K^iv  (c.  dat.  pers.) 
means  "  to  please  "  simply  [cfr.  Lidd.  and  Sc). 

3  H.  E.  ib. 

4  dvTLTrapaKeXevovrat,  which  Dr.  Schwartz,  unfairly  I 
think,  renders  "  iubebant "  {Die  griechischen  christlichen 
Schriftsteller  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte:  Eus.  b.ii,t.  1,  pp. 

494,  495).     I  would  suggest  "  hortabantur."   avmrapaKeXema-dai 

means  "  to  exhort  to  the  contrary  "  {cfr.  Lidd.  and  Sc). 
^  TrXrjKTiKiorepov  KadaTrTopAvtav . 


THE  ADVERSUS  HAERESES  203 

one  questioned.  How  are  we  to  account  for  this 
if  Victor  was  not  the  recognized  primate  of 
Christendom.  If  the  Roman  Pontiff  was  known 
to  have  acted  ultra  vires  on  that  occasion,  was 
there,  in  all  Christendom,  no  member  of  the  epis- 
copacy to  stand  up  and  tell  him  so  ?  Further, 
some  of  the  letters  of  protest  which  reached  him 
implicitly  acknowledge  his  claim  in  the  matter. 
Irenaeus,  for  example,  writing  in  the  name  of  his 
suffragan  bishops,  declared  for  the  Roman  custom, 
but  advised^  the  Pope  not  to  cut  off  entire  churches 
whose  sole  offence  was  their  fidelity  to  the  Kavdtv.  ^ 
If  Irenaeus  believed  that  Victor  was  powerless  to 
excommunicate  the  churches,  the  advice  tendered 
by  him  was  not  only  meaningless,  but  ridiculous. 
No  wonder  Renan  remarked  that  the  papacy  was 
already  "  born  and  well  born."  ^ 

1  irapciivd.  ^  lb.  ^  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  225. 


CHAPTER   VII 

ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

Thascius  Caecilius  Cyprianus  was  born  in 
proconsular  Africa  of  wealthy  heathen  parents  at 
the  dawn  of  the  third  century.  ^  A  rhetorician  by 
profession,  he  remained  a  pagan  until  his  forty- 
sixth  year.  He  then  embraced  Christianity, 
became  a  cleric,  and,  two  years  subsequently,  was 
elected  to  fill  the  important  metropolitan  see  of 
Carthage.  He  suffered  martyrdom  during  the 
Valerian  persecution,  September  14,  258. 

Cyprian's  episcopal  career  was  a  stormy  one. 
To  begin  with,  his  election  was  contested  ;  and  his 
opponents  appear  to  have  maintained  an  attitude 
of  avowed  hostility  towards  him  even  after  his 
consecration.  Occasions  of  vilification  were  not 
wanting  from  the  first.  During  the  Decian  perse- 
cution (249-251)  the  saintly  bishop  abandoned  his 
church,  and  remained  in  concealment,  that  his 
flock  might  not  be  left  shepherdless  in  its  hour  of 
stress  and  trial.  From  his  place  of  refuge  he  was 
able  to  control  diocesan  affairs  by  means  of  letters. 
His  enemies,  however,  not  unnaturally,  availed 
themselves  of  the  incident  to  level  against  him  a 

1  circ.  200-210. 
204 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  205 

charge  of  cowardice  ;  ^  and  a  letter  has  come  down 
to  us  written  by  the  Roman  clergy  to  the  Church 
of  Carthage,  m  which  they  undertake  to  justify  the 
"  flight  "  of  "  the  blessed  pope  Cyprian."  ^ 

During  the  persecution  numbers  of  the  Christians 
denied  the  faith.  Some  offered  sacrifice  or  burned 
incense  to  the  pagan  idols,  and  were  known  as 
sacrificati  or  thurificati.  Others  refused  to  sacrifice, 
but  purchased  libelli  attesting  that  they  had  done 
so.  These  were  named  lihellatici.  While  the  storm 
was  still  raging,  Cyprian  was  called  upon  to  lay 
down  the  law  which  should  regulate  the  treatment 
of  such  weaklings.  In  domg  so  he  mtroduced  an 
important  change  into  the  existing  ecclesiastical 
discipline. 

The  early  Church  was  unwillmg,  as  a  rule,  to 
reconcile  the  U'psed.  That  a  "  saint "  could  sin 
gravely,  despite  his  regeneration,  was  in  the 
beginning  considered  almost  unthinkable,  and  when 
such  cases  arose, — as,  from  the  first,  they  did 
arise, — ^the  clergy,  at  least  in  some  parts  of  the 
Church,  exhorted  the  sinner  to  do  penance,  but  left 
his  reconciUation  in  the  hands  of  the  Creator.  The 
penance  proclaimed  by  Hermas  was  a  mere  transient 
concession,  an  exceptional  privilege  granted  only 
to  his  contemporaries  and  to  be  availed  of  but  once. 
It  was  a  kind  of  jubilee.^ 

1  Ep.  XX.  2  ih.  viii.  1. 

3  c/r.  O'Donnell  :  Penance  in  the  Early  Church,  p.  5  ; 
Tixeront :  Hist,  of  Dogm.,  vol.  i,  p.  112. 


206  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

As  time  went  on,  the  discipline  became  relaxed 
and  ordinary  sinners  were  freely  admitted  to  the 
Sacrament  of  Penance.  Right  through  the  first 
two  centuries,  however,  the  Church  consistently 
refused  to  deal  with  what  were  known  as  the 
"  peccata  ad  mortem  " — apostasy,  fornication  and 
murder.     These  crimes  remained  "  irremissible." 

In  maintaining  this  rigorous  attitude,  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  we  hold,  were  actuated 
solely  by  motives  of  discipline,  and  not  by  any 
conviction  that  the  Church's  power  of  binding  and 
loosing  did  not  extend  to  delicta  graviora.  This 
is  clearly  proved  by  the  action  of  Pope  Callixtus, 
who,  in  the  beginning  of  the  thii'd  century  (217-222) 
enacted  that  fornicators  who  had  performed  a 
specified  penance  were  to  be  reconciled  and 
admitted  to  communion  after  the  manner  of 
ordinary  sinners.^ 

We  note,  in  passing,  the  fact  that  on  this 
occasion  the  Roman  Pontifif  took  upon  himself  to 
legislate  for  the  entire  Church.  Furthermore,  we 
find  that  in  order  to  establish  the  authoritative 
character  of  his  enactment  he  alleged  the  power  of 
the  keys  transmitted  by  the  prince  of  the  apostles  to 
his  successors  the  Roman  bishops.^  The  measure,  it 
is  true,  was  at  first  badly  received  in  certain 
rigorist    quarters — ^notably    in  Africa;^    but    the 


1  Tert.  : 

De  Pud.  i. 

2  ib.  21. 

cjr. 

Tix.,  vol. 

cit.i 

<V- 

343. 

3  Cypr.  : 

:  Ep. 

Iv.  21. 

ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  207 

opposition  was  shortlived.  Before  the  middle  of 
the  century  the  decree  of  Callixtus  was  being  acted 
upon  in  practice  by  the  clergy  everywhere. 

The  Decian  persecution  was  the  occasion  of  a 
further  mitigation  of  the  penitential  discipline. 
While  Cyprian  was  still  a  refugee,  numbers  of  those 
who  had  apostatised  at  Carthage  expressed  a  desire 
to  be  reconciled,  and,  to  facilitate  their  return  to 
communion,  many  obtained  from  the  martyrs  or 
confessors  letters  which  were  known  as  libelli  pads. 
Some  of  these,  it  would  seem,  not  only  recom- 
mended the  bearer  to  the  indulgence  of  the  clergy, 
but  actually  demanded  his  unconditional  restora- 
tion ;  not  a  few^  adding  the  words:  "cum 
suis." 

Recognizing  that  they  had  no  authority  to  move 
in  a  matter  of  such  importance,  some  of  the  priests 
requested  Cyprian  to  allow  them  to  admit  to 
communion  unconditionally  all  bearers  of  libelli 
pads.  Cyprian  refused,  declaring  that  the  entire 
question  should  be  allowed  to  stand  over  "  until 
the  Lord  would  send  them  peace,"  when  he  would 
consider  it  in  conjunction  with  his  clergy  and 
people.  1 

The  priests,  as  a  body,  upheld  the  decision. 
But  some,  acting  independently  and  "  with  con- 
tempt of  the  bishop,"  '^  admitted  bearers  of 
libelli   to   communion,   without   penance   of   any 

1  Ep.  xiv.  4.  2  Ep.  xvi.  1. 


208  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP   AND  MARTYR 

kind.i  Cyprian  once  more  intervened  to  reassert 
his  authority,  but  also  to  make  an  important 
concession.  While  condemning  the  disobedience  of 
his  priests,  and  the  presumption  of  the  martyrs 
and  confessors  in  demanding  the  unconditional 
restoration  of  the  lapsed,  he  permitted  bearers  of 
libelli  who  had  done  penance  to  be  reconciled 
when  in  extremis.^ 

Cyprian  immediately  wrote  to  the  Roman 
clergy'^  explaining  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  re- 
questing them  to  give  their  formal  support  to  his 
decision.  The  Romans  replied  by  a  cautiously- 
worded  letter,*  in  which,  while  associating  them- 
selves in  the  main  with  his  principles,  they  re- 
frained from  expressly  sanctioning  the  reconciliation 
of  apostates.  The  document  was  composed  by 
the  rigorist  Novatian. 

At  Carthage  the  decision  was  badly  received  by 
the  majority  of  those  concerned.  The  malcontents 
were  led  by  the  deacon  Felicissimus  and  by  the 
priest  Novatus.  All  efforts  to  move  the  saintly 
bishop  were  unavailing  ;  he  would  make  no  further 
concessions.  The  lapsed,  he  insisted,  should  await 
his  return  from  exile,  to  have  their  case  examined. 

^  "  Ante  actam  poenitentiam  ante  exomologesim  gravissimi 
atque  extremi  delicti  factam  ante  manum  ab  episcopo  et  clero 
in  poenitentiam  impositam  "  (Ep.  xv.  1). 

2  Ep.  XX.  3. 

^  The  Roman  See  was  at  this  time  vacant.  Pope  Fabian 
had  just  suffered  martyrdom  (January  20,  250). 

*  Ep.  XXX. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  209 

But  his  enemies  in  the  city  had  ulterior  designs. 
Felicissimus  had  organized  his  party  into  a  schis- 
matical  church,  and  now  threatened  to  cut  off  from 
communion  all  who  submitted  to  the  rigorism  of 
Cyprian. 

The  schismatics  were,  of  course,  liberal  in  their 
treatment  of  the  lapsi,  and  admitted  them  to 
communion  freely  and  unconditionally.  Cyprian 
ridiculed  their  action  :  "  Men  who  are  themselves 
excommunicate  and  outside  the  Church,"  he 
writes,  "  offer  communion  to  others."  ^ 

At  this  juncture  the  E/oman  See  was  about  to  be 
filled  ;  and  the  party  of  the  lapsed  at  Carthage 
strained  every  nerve  to  secure  the  election  of  a 
pope  who  should  aid  them  against  their  lawful 
bishop.  Novatus  was  dispatched  to  Rome  to 
support  the  candidature  of  the  presbyter  Novatian  ; 
but  the  scheme  proved  abortive,  the  rival  candidate 
Cornelius  being  elected.  The  discomfited  party  at 
Rome  thereupon  set  up  Novatian  as  anti-pope, 
and  constituted  themselves  a  schismatical  church.^ 

Cyprian's  condemnation  of  the  Novatianists  was 
unqualified.  In  his  eyes  to  break  with  the  legiti- 
mate pope  was  to  break  with  the  Catholic  Church.^ 
In  order  to  assist  the  Roman  clergy  in  their  struggle 
with  the  schismatics  he  composed  his  celebrated 
tract :  "  Z)e  Unitate.'' 

1  Ep.  xHii.  5. 

^  At  first  they  were  merely  schismatical.    Later  they  erred 
in  doctrine  by  holding  the  irremissibility  of  the  sin  of  apostasy. 
''^  Epp.  xliv.  1  ;  xlv.  1,  3. 


210         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 


ECCLESIOLOGY 

The  Church  Local. — ^For  Cyprian  as  for  his  pre- 
decessors, the  local  church  is  a  visible  society, 
ruled  by  a  three-fold  hierarchy  composed  of  a 
monarchical  bishop,  a  college  of  presbyters  and 
deacons. 

The  bishop  is  the  rock-foundation  of  the  local 
church  ;  ^  supreme  control  vests  in  him.  It  is  he 
who  excommunicates  ^  and  restores  to  com- 
munion.^ He  acts  as  supreme  judge  in  all  matters 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline.  Heretics  and  schis- 
matics— and  the  same  is  true  of  mere  lapsi  * — ^he 
reconciles  by  a  judicial  sentence  following  upon  a 
judicial  investigation.^  The  bishop,  having  been 
elected  by  the  clergy  and  people,  is  ordained  by 
other  bishops,^  and  receives  his  pastoral  authority 
"  from  above,"  per  successionum  vices.''  A  bishop 
who  lapses  becomes  permanently  degraded. 

In  the  eyes  of  Cyprian  the  plebs  constitute  a 
rather  important  factor  in  the  government  of  the 
local  church.  They  have  the  power  to  elect  worthy 
bishops  and  to  refuse  the  ministration  of  the  un- 
worthy :  Ipsa  maxime  Imhet  potestatem  vel  eligendi 
dignos  sacerdotes  vel  indignos  recusandi.^   They  have 

1  Ep.  xxxiii.  1.  5  Ep.  xlix.  1-3. 

2  ih.  xli.  2.  6  i^  iy_  5, 

3  ib.  xlix.  2.  7  ift,  xxxiii.  1. 
*  cfr.  De  lapsis  xvi.  s  J5_  j^vii.  3. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  211 

a  voice  in  the  restoration  of  lapsi,  heretics  and 
schismatics,^  and  they  help  to  decide  questions  of 
discipline  which  affect  the  welfare  and  good  name 
of  the  community  as  a  whole.  ^ 

In  theory  Cyprian  seems  occasionally  to  hold  for 
the  independence  of  the  local  church.  A  bishop, 
he  proclaims,  is  not  amenable  to  his  fellows  but  to 
God.^  His  practice,  however,  was  at  variance  with 
this.  He  recognized  the  legitimacy  and  authority 
of  provincial  councils.  Twice  yearly  he  himself 
presided  over  the  celebrated  council  of  Carthage 
which  controlled  the  entire  province.  Cyprian  was 
in  fact  primate  of  Africa.  "  As  the  See  of  Rome 
was  the  '  See  of  Peter,'  "  writes  Tixeront,  "  so  also 
that  of  Carthage  was  in  the  fourth  century  the  See 
of  Cyprian."^  Provincial  councils  were  quite 
common  in  his  time  and  earlier.^  The  great 
churches — Rome,  Lyons,  Alexandria,  Carthage, 
Caesarea,  Ephesus,  etc. — constituted  rallying- 
centres  for  the  churches  of  their  respective  areas. 
Individual  bishops  were  bound  by  the  decrees  of 
provincial  councils,^  and  could  even  be  deposed 
by  them.'  In  practice,  too,  as  we  shall  see,  Cyprian 
recognized  the  Roman  primacy  of  jurisdiction. 

•  "  Cum  petitu  et  conscientia  plebis  "  :  Epp.  Ixiv.  1 ;  xxxiv.  3. 
2  Ep.  xiv.  4. 

^  cfr.  Acta.  Cone.  Carth.  (256),  sect,  i;  Epp.  xxxiii.  1 ;  lix.  1, 
14 ;  Ixvi.  8  ;  Ixxi.  3  ;  Ixxii.  3. 

4  Vol.  cit.,  p.  356  ;  cfr.  S.  Opt.  ii.  10. 

5  Epp.  lix.  10 ;  Ixxiii.  1. 

6  ib.  i.  1,  2  ;  Ixiv.  1,  2.  '  Ep.  lix.  10. 


212  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

The  Church  Universal. — The  great  churches 
themselves  held  together.  They  had  a  common 
Kavtov,  to  which  bishops  everywhere  were  obliged 
to  conform.  For  Cyprian  Christianity  is  a  traditio 
Dei,  which  stands  over  against  alienae  doctrinae  et 
magisteria  humanae  institutionis.^  Disagreement 
in  matters  of  faith  was  reprobated  ;  and,  even  in 
the  domain  of  discipline,  uniformity  was  felt  to 
be  desirable.  Thus,  when  the  Roman  clergy  wrote 
to  their  Carthaginian  colleagues  to  say  that 
penitent  lapsi  might  be  "  assisted  "  in  extremis, 
Cyprian  replied  informing  them  that  he  had  upheld 
their  judgment :  "  I  deemed  it  well,"  he  said,  "  to 
stand  by  your  decision,  lest  our  proceedings,  which 
ought  to  be  united  and  to  agree  in  all  things,  should 
in  any  respect  be  different."  ^  Subsequently,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  was  careful  to  obtain  the  sanction 
of  the  same  presbyters  for  his  method  of  dealing 
with  the  Carthaginian  malcontents.  The  clergy, 
he  said,  should  follow  a  common  plan  in  ad- 
ministering  the  Church. 

About  this  time  he  wrote  to  warn  the  Romans 
against  intercourse  with  a  certain  Privatus  of 
Lambesa,  a  heretic  who  had  been  condemned  for 
many  crimes.^  The  presbyters  replied  commending 
his  vigilance,  and  assuring  him  that  they  had 
previously  known  of  the  character  of  Privatus  and 
had  dealt  with  him  accordingly :  "  You  have  acted 

1  De  Unit.  xix.  ^  gp.  xx.  ^  ^  \^   jq 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  213 

as  you  usually  do,"  their  letter  runs,  "  in  informing 
us  of  the  matter  as  being  an  object  of  anxiety. 
For  it  behoves  us  all  to  guard  (excubare)  the  body 
of  the  whole  Church,  whose  members  are  to  be 
found  throughout  the  various  provinces.  But  the 
deceitfulness  of  that  crafty  man  was  not  hidden 
from  us  even  before  we  had  your  letter ;  for 
previously,  when  a  certain  Futurus,  a  standard- 
bearer  of  Privatus,  came  and  desired  to  obtain 
letters  from  us,  we  were  neither  ignorant  who  he 
was  nor  did  he  obtain  the  letters."^  These  were  com- 
mendatory letters  which,  when  obtained  from  any 
church,  secured  the  bearer  admission  to  fellowship 
and  communion  in  any  other  church.  Travellers 
who  failed  to  produce  "  letters  "  were  excluded 
from  communion  ;  and,  if  clerics,  were  not  allowed 
to  officiate.  There  was,  therefore,  a  Church  of 
churches  which  was  a  social  unit.  The  Christian 
communities  constituted  a  league  in  opposition  to 
heresy.  The  bishops  "  who  guarded  the  body  of 
the  whole  Church  "  did  not  guard  it  solitarily ; 
for  the  withholding  of  commendatory  letters 
closed  the  Church  doors  against  those  who  were 
excommunicated  wherever  they  travelled.  There 
was  thorough  and  effective  organization  ;  so  that 
it  does  not  surprise  one  to  find  that,  when  an 
important  see  is  filled,  the  Catholic  bishops  are 
notified  that  the  newly-elected  colleague  may  be 
recognised  by  them.^ 

1  Ep.  xxxvi.  14.  2  cfr.  Epp.  xlv.  3  ;  Iv.  8. 


214         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

The  unity  of  the  Church  is  based  on  unity  of  the 
episcopate.  1  To  disrupt  this  unity  by  schism  is 
never  lawful.  ^ 

De  Catholicae  Ecclesiae  Unitate 

The  title  of  this  celebrated  tract  is  somewhat 
misleading.  It  has  to  do  primarily,  not  so  much 
with  Catholic  as  with  local  ecclesiastical  luiity. 
Cyprian  composed  it,  as  we  have  seen,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Novatian  crisis  ;  his  main  purpose 
being  to  estabUsh  the  oneness  of  the  cathedra  in 
each  Church.  "  Does  any  one  believe,"  he  asks, 
"  that  in  one  place  there  can  be  either  many  shep- 
herds or  many  flocks."  ^ 

Argument. — Christians  should  be  at  once  simple 
and  prudent ;  to  secure  salvation  we  must  beware 
of  Satan's  wiles  and  keep  the  commandments  of 
the  Master.  Cyprian  explains :  "  The  devil, 
finding  himself  unable  any  longer  to  fill  his  fanes 
with  idol- worshippers,  has  devised  a  new  fraud, 
and  under  the  very  title  of  the  Christian  name 
deceives  the  incautious.  He  has  invented  heresies 
and  schisms,  to  subvert  the  faith,  to  corrupt  the 


1  Epp.  iv.  24  ;  xxxvi.  4  ;  Ixiii.  1. 

2  Ep.  Ix.  1. 

2  De  Unit.  viii.  We  follow  Hartel's  critical  text.  By  doing 
so,  however,  we  do  not  intend  to  pass  judgment  on  the  so- 
called  papal  interpolations  which  are  found  in  the  tract  "  De 
Unitate,"  and  which  Hartel  omits.  The  spurious  character  of 
the  "  interpolations  "  iS;  to  say  the  least,  doubtful. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR     .    215 

truth,  and  to  divide  the  unity.  Those  whom  he 
cannot  keep  in  the  darkness  of  the  old  way,  he 
circumvents  and  deceives  by  the  error  of  a  new 
way.    He  snatches  men  from  the  Church  itself.''''  ^ 

The  saint  proceeds  to  make  good  his  contention. 
Christ,  he  argues,  began  by  naming  one  apostle  as 
the  rock-foundation  of  His  Church,  and  the 
shepherd  of  His  flock.  Why  ?  Not,  he  assures  us, 
that  He  intended  to  invest  any  one  apostle  as 
such  with  authority  over  the  others, — He 
endowed  all  with  the  same  power,  ^ — but  "  that 
He  might  show  forth  unity."  In  other  words  Christ 
was  not  satisfied  to  found  the  Church  on  the 
apostles  collectively.  Instead,  He  founded  it  on  a 
single  apostle,  in  the  first  instance,  to  inculcate  the 
principle  of  local  unity  in  and  through  subjection 
to  a  single  bishop ;  and,  incidentally,  the  principle 
of  catholic  unity  as  "  beginning  with  one."  Such 
would  seem  to  be  the  saint's  interpretation  of 
the  words  of  promise  (Mt.  xvi).-^ 


1  De  Unit.,  i.-iii. 

2  i6.  iv.  "  .  .  .  Apostolis  omnibus  .  .  .  parem  potes- 
tatem  tribuit.  .  .  .  Hoc  erant  et  ceteri  apostoli  quod  fuit 
Petrus,  pari  consortio  prsediti  et  honoris  et  potestatis." 

^  We  confess  it  is  difficult  to  be  certain  about  the  exact 
meaning  here  ;  the  passage  is  obscure.  We  have  given  what, 
in  view  of  certain  statements  in  the  epistles — especially 
xxxiii.  1  ;  Ixxiii.  7  ;  Ixxvi.  8 — we  consider  to  be  the  argu- 
ment. Batiffol  asserts  that  "  in  the  eyes  of  Cyprian,  Christ's 
words  to  Peter  mean  only  that  each  church  is  one  since  the 
first  of  all  the  churches,  that  founded  by  Christ  on  Peter,  is 
one  "  {pp.  cit.  p.  358).     Tixeront,  on  the  other  hand,  inter- 

Q 


216         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

But  there  is  also  a  unity  of  units  ;  because  the 
Catholic  hierarchy  is  one  and  undivided.  The 
Episcopate  is  one  ;  it  is  held  conjointly  by  the 
bishops.  1  From  this  unity  of  the  Episcopate 
springs  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church.  "  The 
Church  which  is  Catholic  and  one  is  not  cut  nor 
divided,  but  is  connected  and  bound  together  by 
the  cement  of  the  '  presbyters,'  who  cohere  with 
one  another."  If  one  member  of  the  episcopal 
body  prove  false  to  his  trust,  his  colleagues  take 
care  to  provide  for  his  flock.  ^ 

The  Church  is  one  as  a  tree  which  has  extended 
its  branches  far  and  wide.  A  branch  lopped  off 
from  the  trunk  is  unable  to  bud.  Christianity  has 
diffused  itself  over  the  whole  world.  "  The  Church 
is  one  mother,  plentiful  in  the  results  of  fruitful- 
ness :  from  her  womb  a\  e  are  born,  by  her  milk 
we  are  nourished,  bj^  her  spirit  we  are  animated."  ^ 

She  is  the  bride  of  Christ ;  He  has  begotten  us  of 
her.  She  cannot  be  adulterous.  He  is  her  sole 
consort,  she  is  His  only  spouse :  "  She  kno\vs  one 
home  ;  she  guards  with  chaste  modesty  the  sanctity 
of  one  couch.  .  .  .  Those  therefore  who  have 
not  the  Church  for  their  mother,  have  not  God  for 


prets  the  passage  in  De  JJnitate  as  implying  that  Christ  sym- 
boUzed  the  unity  of  the  Church  Universal  by  founding  it  on 
Peter,  and  bestowing  on  him  alone,  in  the  first  instance,  the 
power  He  was  later  on  to  grant  to  the  others  {op.  cit.  vol.  i., 
p.  357). 

*  "  Episcopatus  unus  est  cuius  a  singuhs  in  solidum  pars 
tenetur  "  {lb.  v.). 

2  Ep.  Ixviii.  3.  ^  De  Unit.,  v. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  217 

their  father.  They  are  strangers,  they  are  profane, 
they  are  enemies."  * 

Cyprian's  De  Unitate  is  the  last  word  on 
heresy  and  schism :  "  He  who  does  not  hold  the 
unity  of  the  Church  does  not  hold  God's  law,  does 
not  hold  the  faith  of  the  Father  and  Son,  does  not 
hold  life  and  salvation."  -  The  Church  is  an  ark 
of  Noe  ;  to  remain  without  is  to  perish.^ 

The  Church  is  the  assembly  of  those  who  hold 
one  and  the  same  faith  in  subjection  to  the  bishops. 
Schismatics  separate  themselves:  "It  is  not  we 
who  have  withdrawn  from  them,  but  they  from 
us."  *  Heresies  are  permitted  by  God  as  means 
of  ridding  the  Church  of  undesirables.  "  Let  no 
one  imagine  that  the  really  good  can  depart  from 
the  Church.'^  The  wind  does  not  carry  away  the 
wheat ;  it  is  only  the  light  straws  that  are  tossed 
about  by  the  tempest ;  it  is  only  the  feeble  trees 
that  are  blown  down  by  the  whirlwind.  Heresy 
approves  the  faithful  and  discovers  the  perfidious.® 

The  presumption  of  heresiarchs  is  diabolical. 
Of  their  own  accord  and  without  any  divine 
arrangement  they  set  themselves  up  as  bishops: 
"  They  assume  to  themselves  the  name  of  bishop, 
although  no  one  has  conferred  on  them  the  epis- 
copate." '    A  bishop  is  consecrated  by  having  the 

1  De  Unit.,  vi.  '  ib. 

2  ib.  *  ib.  xii. 

5  Nemo  existimet  bonos  de  ecclesia  posse  discedere. 
^  ib.  ix-x,  ^  ib. 


218  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

episcopate  communicated  to  him  by  men  already 
possessed  of  it.  Consecration  by  heretical  and 
schismatical  bishops  is  absolutely  null  {fidraia). 
There  is  no  episcopate  outside  the  Church.* 

Those  pseudo-bishops  sit  on  thrones  of  pestilence. 
Artful  in  corrupting  the  truth,  they  vomit  forth 
death-dealing  doctrines.  Their  speech  is  a  deadly 
poison  ;  it  eats  like  a  cancer. - 

The  Church  is  the  exclusive  repository  of  the 
blessings  derived  to  us  from  Christ.  She  alone 
dispenses  His  grace.  For  Cyprian  this  is  a  first 
principle.  Outside  the  Church  there  are  no  sacra- 
ments, no  salvation.  The  axiom;  "  Extra  eccle- 
siam  nulla  salus  "  was  formulated  by  him.^ 

He  has  already  referred  to  the  invalidity  of 
heretical  baptism.  "  Heretics  and  schismatics," 
he  says,  "  claim  to  baptize,  although  there  can  be 
no  other  baptism  but  one.  They  forsake  the 
fountain  of  life,  and  yet  promise  the  grace  of  living 
and  saving  water."  But  their  pretensions  are 
hollow.  "  Men  are  not  washed  among  them,  but 
rather  befouled."  * 

The  principle  applies  all  round.  Their  Masses, 
too,  are  invalid  :  "  What  sacrifices,"  he  asks,  "  do 
those  who  are  opposed  to  the  presbyters  think  they 
celebrate  ?  Do  they  deem  that  they  have  Christ 
with  them  when  they  are  collected  together  outside 


1  cfr.  Eus.  H.  E.  vi,  43.  10.  ^  Ep.  Ixxiii.  21. 

*  De  Unit.  x.  *  De  Unit.  xiii. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  219 

His  Church  ?  "  ^  We  may  add  here  that  Cyprian 
is  inclined  to  go  even  farther,  and  to  make 
the  vahdity  of  the  sacraments — at  least  of  the 
Eucharist — depend  on  the  probity  of  the  minister.^ 

The  sin  of  schism  is  inexpiable.^  Even  martyr- 
dom is  powerless  to  save  seceders.  Though  they 
give  themselves  up  to  flames  and  fires ;  though 
they  be  thrown  to  the  wild  beasts ;  it  is  to  no 
purpose ;  their  suffering  is  not  the  crown  of  faith, 
but  the  punishment  of  perfidy.  They  may  be 
slain  ;  crowned  they  cannot  be.^ 

Separatists  are  vitandi  :  "  Whoso  separates  from 
the  Church  is  to  be  turned  away  from  and  avoided. 
Such  a  one  is  perverted  and  sins,  and  is  condemned 
of  his  own  self.  Does  he  think  that  he  has  Christ 
who  acts  in  opposition  to  Christ's  presbyters,  who 
separates  himself  from  the  fellowship  of  His  clergy 
and  people  ?  He  bears  arms  against  the  Church  ; 
he  acts  in  opposition  to  God's  appointment.  An 
enemy  of  the  altar,  a  rebel  against  Christ's  sacrifice, 
for  the  faith  faithless,  for  religion  profane,  a  dis- 
obedient servant,  an  impious  son,  a  hostile  brother, 
despising  the  bishops  and  forsaking  God's  priests, 
he  dares  to  set  up  another  altar  to  profane  the 
truth  of  the  Lord's  offering  by  false  sacrifices,  and 

1  De  Unit.  xiii. 

2  cjr.  Ep.  Ixvii.  2,  3. 

^  "  Inexpiabilis  culpa  discordiae  ;  macula  ista  nee  sanguine 
abluitur  "  {ib.  xiv). 
*  ib.  xiii. 


220  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

disdains  to  recognise  that  he  who  opposes  the 
divine  appointment  is  punished  for  his  temerity."  ^ 

The  condition  of  the  schismatic  is  much  more 
serious  than  that  of  the  Christian  who  has  merely 
lapsed.  The  latter  has  sinned  but  once,  and  seeks 
re-instatement ;  the  schismatic,  on  the  contrarj^ 
sins  daily,  and  resists  the  Church.  Martyrdom, 
too,  may  save  the  lapsed  ;  it  cannot  save  the 
schismatic.^ 

In  fine,  Cyprian  bases  the  absolute  unlawfulness 
of  schism  on  the  corporate  unity  of  the  Church. 
"  God  is  one,"  he  writes,  "  and  Christ  is  one,  and 
His  Church  is  one,  and  the  faith  is  one,  and  the 
people  are  joined  together  into  a  substantial  unity 
of  body  by  the  cement  of  concord.  Unity  cannot 
be  severed  ;  the  body  cannot  be  divided."  ^ 

Summary. — Christ  arranged  that  in  each  church 
there  should  be  but  one  see.  Hfence  Christians  are 
strictly  bound  to  subject  themselves  to  their 
legitimate  bishop.  Every  church  is  a  social  unit. 
Schism  is  inexcusable. 

All  the  churches  form  together  one  Church. 
The  Catholic  bishops  are  united  in  opposition  to 
heresy  and  schism.  The  episcopate  is  one  and 
undivided.  To  break  with  a  local  church  is  to 
break  with  the  Church  Universal.'* 

The  Church    is   the  sole  repository  of   grace; 

'  cfr.  Ep.  xvii.  ^  ib.  xx.  iii, 

2  ib.  xix.  4  {^  xliii.  7. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  221 

she  alone  holds  the  means  of  salvation.  For 
Cyprian  the  rule,  "  extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus  " 
admits  of  no  exception.^  Schism  is  thus  abso- 
lutely sinful,  for  two  reasons  :  first,  because  ignoring 
Christ's  positive  arrangements  ;  secondly,  because 
suicidal. 

The  Baptismal  Controversy. 

Towards  the  close  of  his  life,  Cyprian  became 
involved  in  an  important  controversy  concerning 
the  validity  of  heretical  baptism. 

So  long  as  heretics  refrained  from  organising 
separate  communities  the  question  as  to  the 
validity  of  their  baptism  did  not  arise.  They  were 
baptised  by  ministers  of  the  true  Church,  and  were 
reconciled  by  a  simple  imposition  of  hands  mito 
penance.^    Baptism  was  not  repeated. 

But,  with  the  formation  of  independent  sects, 
the  mode  of  procedure  to  be  followed  in  reconciling 
heretics  became  more  difficult  to  determine.  Was 
the  Church  to  rebaptize  those  who  came  to  her 
from  an  heretical  sect,  and  who  had  been 
baptised  by  an  heretical  minister ;  or  was  she  to 

1  cJT.  Epp.  iv.  4  ;  Iv.  24  ;  xli.  2. 

2  The  "  impositio  manuum,"  in  this  case,  did  not  confer  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  was  only  those  who  had  been  baptized  and 
confirmed  outside  the  Church  who  were  reconfirmed  on  their 
return  to  communion  {cjr.  Ep.  Ixxi.  2).  The  early  Church, 
which  admitted  the  validity  of  baptism  administered  by 
heretics,  regarded  their  confirmation  as  invalid. 


222         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

admit  them  to  communion  by  a  simple  imposition 
of  hands  ?  It  was  a  practical  problem  ;  to  solve  it 
was  to  pronounce  on  the  value  of  heretical  baptism. 

The  Church  was  slow  in  coming  to  a  decision. 
So  late  as  the  third  century  we  find  that  Christen- 
dom was  pretty  evenly  divided  in  its  adherence  to 
two  conflicting  practices.  The  Churches  of  Rome,^ 
Alexandria, 2  and  Palestine,^  at  that  time  recon- 
ciled by  a  simple  imposition  of  hands  ;  while  those 
of  Africa,*  Syria, ^  Phrygia,^  Cappadocia,  and  the 
neighbouring  provmces,^  declared  against  the 
validity  of  heretical  baptism,  and  accordingly 
used  the  baptismal  rite  together  with  an  imposition 
of  hands  in  the  ceremony  of  reconciliation.^ 

For  a  time,  apparently,  this  serious  diversity  in 
practice  was  regarded  with  general  indifference. 
As  in  the  Easter  controversy,  individual  churches 
were  left  to  follow  their  own  custom,  catholic 
unity  remaining  intact. 

The  seeds  of  disunion  were  there  however.     A 

1  Philosoph.  ix.  12  ;  Cypr.  Epp.  Ixii.  3  ;  Ixxiv.  1,  etc.  ; 
Eus.  H.  E.  vii.  3. 

2  cfr.  Jer.  De  vir.  illustr.  Ixix. 

3  Eus.  vii.  2,  3. 

4  Cypr.  Epp.  Ixx-lxxv. 
•''  Ap.  Constit.  vi.  15. 

6  Eus.  H.  E.  vii.  7,  5. 

7  Cypr.  Ep.  Ixxv.  7,  19. 

8  The  practice  of  rebaptising  heretics  would  appear  to  have 
arisen  as  a  result  of  the  adoption  of  the  doctrines  of  Tertullian 
in  certain  quarters,  cfr.  Tert.  :  De  Bapt.  xv  ;  Diet,  de  Theol. 
Cath.,  torn,  ii.,  p.  219. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  223 

council  of  African  bishops,  held  about  the  year 
200,1  and  presided  over  by  Agrippinus,  one  of 
Cyprian's  predecessors  and  a  contemporary  of 
Tertullian,  pronounced  heretical  baptism  nuU  and 
void.  2  Other  councils  held  about  the  same  time 
in  Asia  Minor  and  Syria,  and  the  Councils  of 
Iconium  and  Synnada,  held  later  during  the  period 
222-235,^  gave  similar  decisions.* 

Cyprian  brought  matters  to  a  head.  A  layman 
named  Magnus  had  consulted  him  as  to  "  whether 
they  who  come  from  Novatian  ought,  after  his 
profane  washing,  to  be  baptised  and  sanctified  in 
the  Catholic  Church."  Cyprian,  following  his 
master,^  Tertullian,  replied  m  the  affirmative: 
"  Heretics  and  schismatics,"  he  declared,  "  have 
no  power,  no  right."  ® 

The  reasons  he  adduces  in  this  and  other  letters 
to  establish  the  nullity  of  heretical  baptism,  are 
numerous  and  weighty :     The  Church,  he  argues, 


1  Tixeront,  following  Leclercq,  gives  198  (approx.)  as  the 
year  {op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  368).  Batiffol  puts  it  about  twenty 
years  later.  Bareille  (in  Diet,  de  Theol.  Cath.),  following  the 
author  of  the  Philosophoumena,  gives  218-222. 

2  Ep.  Ixxiv. 

^  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  p.  381. 

*  Eus.  H.  E.  vii.  7;  cjr.  Tixeront,  vol.  cit.,  p.  368;  Diet,  de 
Theol.  Cath.,  torn,  ii,  p.  220. 

'^  Jerome  tells  us  that  so  great  was  Cyprian's  respect  for  the 
opinions  of  Tertullian  that  he  was  wont  to  refer  to  him  as 
"  the  master  "  {De  vir.  ill.  liii). 

«  Epp.  Ixix  ;  Ixx.  1  ;  Ixxi.  1. 


224  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

is  the  sole  repository  of  grace  and  of  the  means  of 
grace  ;  she  is  an  enclosed  garden  which  is  not  open 
to  strangers  and  profane  persons.  She  is  a  sealed 
fountain  ;  he  who  is  placed  without  has  no  access 
to  the  spring ;  he  cannot  drink  thence  nor  be 
sealed ;  he  cannot  be  quickened  and  sanctified 
from  that  water  of  which  those  only  who  are 
within  can  make  use  or  drink.  The  Church  alone 
has  the  power  of  baptising  and  cleansing.  She 
alone  has  the  living  water."  ^ 

The  Lord  Himself  has  instructed  us  to  regard 
as  pagans  and  publicans  those  who  will  not  hear 
the  Church.^  Hence  we  cannot  allow  that  heretics 
and  schismatics  validly  administer  the  Christian 
sacraments.  How  can  any  one  cleanse  and  sanctify 
the  waters  of  baptism  who  is  himself  unclean  and 
devoid  of  sanctity  ?  Besides,  those  who  receive 
baptism  are  anointed  '*  that  they  may  have  in  them 
the  grace  of  Christ."  Now,  the  oil  of  unction,  like 
the  Eucharist,  is  sanctified  on  the  altar.  There 
can  thus  be  no  baptismal  anointing  among  heretics  ; 
having  no  altar  they  can  neither  sanctify  the  oil 
nor  celebrate  the  Eucharist.  Finally,  baptism 
administered  by  heretics  is  manifestly  of  no  value  ; 
how  can  a  minister  who  is  himself  dead  quicken 
others  ?  ^      Heretics    are    equally    incapable    of 

1  cfr.  Epp.  Ixix.  2,  3  ;  Ixxiii.  1, 10-12  ;  Ixxiv.  11  ;  Ixxv.  11, 16. 

2  Ep.  Ixix.  1. 

^  cjr.  Epp.  Ixx.  1,  2  ;  Ixix.  8  ;  Ixxi.  1.  The  reader  will  have 
no  difficulty  in  discovering  in  these  epistles  the  seeds  of 
Donatism. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  225 

receiving  the  sacraments.     None  receive  grace  save 
such  as  hold  the  true  faith.  ^ 

Baptism,  he  argues  further,  is  a  regeneration  ; 
it  makes  us  sons  of  God.  How,  then,  can  heresy, 
which  is  not  the  spouse  of  Christ,  confer  baptism  ? 
How  can  it  generate  sons  to  God  by  Christ  ?  The 
Church  alone  is  the  Spouse  of  Christ ;  she  alone 
bears  sons  to  God  ;  she  alone  baptizes.'^ 

But  Cyprian  bases  his  strongest  argument  on 
the  admission  of  his  opponents,  that  heretics 
cannot  give  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  those  who  have  been 
confirmed  in  heretical  sects  are  reconfirmed  on  the 
occasion  of  their  reconciliation,  why  inconsistently 
withhold  rebaptism  in  their  case  ?  If  heretical 
confirmation  is  invalid,  as  is  acknowledged,  how 
do  we  contend  that  heretical  baptism  is  valid  ? 
If  those  who  are  outside  the  Church  can  baptise, 
they  can  confer  the  Holy  Ghost ;  if  they  cannot 
give  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  cannot  baptize.^ 

To  the  objection  that  the  nullity  of  confirmation 
conferred  by  heretics  does  not  justify  us  in  inferring 
the  nullity  of  their  baptism,  since  the  invalidity  of 
their  confirmation  is  due  solely  to  the  fact  that 
they  do  not  possess  and  hence  cannot  give  the 
Holy  Ghost,  he  replies:  It  is  no  less  true  that 
those  who  do  not  possess  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot 
remit  sin  and  therefore  cannot  baptise.*     Christ 

1  Ep.  Ixxiii.  4,  5.  ^  gp.  Ixxiv.  6. 

3  Ep.  Ixxiv.  15. 

'*  For  Cyprian  a  sacrament  to  be  valid  must  be  fruitful. 


226         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

said :  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost  whose  sins  you 
shall  forgive  they  are  forgiven  them."  But  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  found  only  in  the  Church.  Heretics 
and  schismatics,  therefore,  are  powerless  to  baptize, 
as  they  are  powerless  to  confirm.^ 

Finally,  Cyprian,  like  his  opponents,  appeals  to 
tradition.  The  custom  of  rebaptising  heretics,  he 
affirms,  is  of  long  standing  in  the  Church,  and  was 
formally  sanctioned  by  an  African  Council  many 
years  previously.  He  is  careful  to  explain  the 
custom.  Those  heretics  who  have  been  baptized 
in  the  Church  are  not  rebaptised  ;  in  their  case  the 
ceremony  of  reconciliation  consists  ia  a  simple 
imposition  of  hands  unto  penance.  Why  ? 
"  Because,"  he  answers,  "  they  are  already  sheep." 
On  the  other  hand,  heretics  who  have  been 
baptised  and  confirmed  outside  the  Church,  and 
who,  on  that  account,  are  not  really  sheep,  are 
reconciled  by  baptism  and  an  imposition  of  hands. 
The  water  which  makes  sheep  is  found  only  in  the 
Church.2 

Cyprian  is  not  perturbed  to  find  that  his 
opponents  appeal  to  an  older  custom  to  prove  the 
validity  of  heretical  baptism.  "  It  is  in  vain,"  he 
writes,  "  that  some,  in  opposing  us,  appeal  to 
custom  when  they  find  themselves  overcome  by 
reason.^'     The  custom    they  adduce  is   not  apos- 


1  Ep.  Ixix.  10,  11, 

2  ib.  Ixxi.  2. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  227 

tolic  ;  ^  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  to  show 
that  the  apostles  recognized  the  validity  of  heretical 
baptism.  Besides,  he  adds,  customs  should  never 
be  followed  blindly :  non  est  de  consuetudine 
praescribendum  sed  ratione  vincendumr  "  Who 
is  so  foolish,"  Firmilian  asks,  "  as  to  prefer  custom 
to  truth  ?  "  =^ 

All  the  logic  and  all  the  consistency  seemed 
marshalled  on  the  side  of  the  Primate  of  Africa ; 
and  yet  it  was  the  cause  of  his  opponents  which 
triumphed  ultimately :  the  illogical  and  inconsistent 
practice  prevailed.  Cyprian  had  the  African 
custom  formally  sanctioned  by  a  largely-attended 
council  held  at  Carthage  in  the  autumn  of  255, 
and  by  another  held  in  the  spring  of  256,  and 
forwarded  the  acts  of  both  to  Pope  Stephen.  His 
covering  letter  was  injudicious  in  form,  no  less  than 
in  substance.  The  tone  was  not  only  independent 
but  impertment — if  we  may  say  so.  "  We  have 
brought  these  things  to  your  laiowledge,  dearest 
brother,"  he  wrote,  "  for  the  sake  of  our  mutual 
honour  and  sincere  affection,  believing  that, 
according  to  the  truth  of  your  religion  and  faith, 
those  things  which  are  no  less  religious  than  true 

1  Note  how  Cyprian  (Ep.  Ixxiv.  10)  and  his  supporters 
(Ep.  Ixxv.  19),  like  all  the  Fathers,  stood  by  the  principle  of 
the  traditio  apostolica  as  the  last  word  in  matters  of  belief  and 
of  discipHne. 

2  Ep.  Ixxi.  3. 

*  Ep.  Ixxv.  19.  c/r.  Bat.  :  op.  cit.,  pp.  385,  386  ;  Diet,  de 
Thiol.  Cath.,  vol.  ii,  p.  221. 


228  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

will  be  approved  by  you.  But  we  know  that  some 
will  not  lay  aside  what  they  have  once  imbibed, 
and  do  not  easily  change  their  purpose ;  but 
keeping  fast  the  bond  of  peace  and  concord  among 
their  colleagues,  retain  certain  things  peculiar  to 
themselves,  which  have  once  been  adopted  among 
them.  In  which  behalf  we  neither  do  violence  to 
nor  impose  a  law  upon  any  one,  since  each  prelate 
has  in  the  administration  of  the  Church  the 
exercise  of  his  free  will  as  he  shall  give  an  account 
of  his  conduct  to  the  Lord."  ^ 

Stephen's  letter  of  repty  has,  unhappily,  perished; 
but  the  gist  of  it  msiy  be  gathered  from  the  follow- 
ing extract,  quoted  by  Cyprian  in  his  letter  to 
Pompey :  "  Among  other  things,"  he  wrote, 
"  Stephen  added  this  saying :  '  If  any  one,  there- 
fore, come  to  you  from  any  heresy  AA'hatever,  let 
nothing  be  innovated  which  has  not  been  handed 
down  ;  to  wit,  that  hands  be  imposed  on  him  unto 
penance ;  ^  since  heretics  themselves  in  their  own 
proper  character  do  not  baptize  such  as  come  to 

1  Ep.  Ixxii.  3. 

2  What  is  the  significance  of  the  words  "  in  poeniteniiam  "  ? 
Are  they  a  '  slip  '  for  "m  Spiritum  Sanctum  "  ?  Probably. 
The  meaning,  we  have  no  doubt,  is  that  those  who  were  baptized 
and  confirmed  in  an  heretical  sect — never  those  who  were 
baptized  and  confirmed  in  the  Church — were  reconciled  by  an 
imposition  of  hands  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost- 
Cyprian  and  Firmilian  base  their  main  argument  on  Stephen's 
admission  that  heretics  who  have  been  confirmed  in  heresy 
should  be  confirmed  anew  on  admission  to  the  Church. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  229 

them  from  one  another,  but  only  admit  them  to 


communion. 


'  "  1 


It  was  a  thunderbolt.  Cyprian  had  written  to 
emphasise  the  principle  of  episcopal  independence, 
Stephen  had  replied  by  laying  down  the  law  for 
Cyprian  himself  and  for  his  colleagues  everywhere. 

But  more  than  this.  The  Pope  had  struck  at  the 
very  roots  of  Independency  ;  he  had  proclaimed 
the  Roman  primacy  of  jurisdiction.  He  had  put 
himself  forw^ard  as  a  bishop  of  bishops  in  virtue 
of  Ms  position  as  successor  and  heir  to  St.  Peter. 
It  was  intolerable:  "I  am  justly  indignant," 
writes  Firmilian,  "  that  he  who  so  boasts  of  the 
locus  of  his  episcopate,  and  contends  that  he  is 
successor  to  St.  Peter  on  whom  the  foundations  of 
the  Church  were  laid,  should  acknowledge  other 
rock-foundations  and  other  churches,  through  de- 
fending by  his  authority  the  validity  of  their 
baptism."  ^ 

Cyprian  resolved  to  hold  out  ;  he  and  his 
colleagues  would  not  surrender  to  arrogance  and 
despotism.  No  time  was  to  be  lost.  The  dis- 
cussion of  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism  was 
formally  re-opened  at  a  Council  held  at  Carthage 

1  Ep.  Ixxiv.  1.  The  Pope  held  for  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacra- 
mental rite  considered  in  itself  (Ep.  Ixxv.  9).  He  taught  that 
the  efficacy  of  the  rite  is  due  to  Christ's  presence  therein  and  to 
His  sanctifying  intervention  (Ixxv.  12).  We  shall  find  this 
doctrine  analysed  and  developed  by  St.  Augustine  (».  infra). 

2  Ep.  Ixxv.  17. 


230         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

a  few  months  later  (September,  256),  when  the  old 
principles  were  defiantly  reasserted  :  "  It  remains," 
said  Cyprian,  addressing  the  assembled  prelates, 
"  that  upon  this  same  matter  each  of  us  should 
bring  forward  Avhat  he  thinks,  judging  no  man  nor 
rejecting  any  one  from  the  right  of  communion,  if 
he  should  think  differently  from  us.  For  neither 
does  any  one  of  us  set  himseK  up  as  a  bishop  of 
bishops,  nor  by  tyrannical  terror  does  any  compel 
his  colleague  to  the  necessity  of  obedience ;  since 
every  bishop,  according  to  the  allowance  of  his 
liberty  and  poAA-er,  has  his  own  proper  right  of 
judgment  and  can  no  more  be  judged  by  another 
than  he  himself  can  judge  another."  ^ 

Cyprian  recorded  his  own  judgment  as  follows: 
"  The  letter  which  was  written  to  our  colleague 
Jubaianus  very  fully  expresses  my  opinion  that, 
according  to  evangelical  and  apostolic  testimony, 
heretics,  who  are  called  adversaries  of  Christ  and 
Antichrists,  when  they  come  to  the  Church,  must 
be  baptized  with  the  one  baptism  of  the  Church, 
that  they  may  be  made  of  adversaries,  friends,  and 
of  Antichrists,  Christians."  ^ 

What  followed  is  important.  The  Pope,  we 
know,  forwarded  his  decision  to  all  the  bishops; 
but  did  he  excommunicate  dissenters  ?  Possibly. 
He  certainly  threatened  to  do  so.^    It  is,  however, 

1  Acta.  Cone.  Garth.  (256),  sect.  i. 

2  ib.  fin.  3  cfr.  Eus.  H.  E.  vii.  5. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  231 

doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  whether  he  subsequently 
gave  effect  to  his  threat. 

This  is  a  question  of  fact  simply,  and  should  be 
investigated  dispassionately.  It  matters  little  what 
the  findings  may  be.  Catholic  historians  appear 
to  us  to  attach  undue  importance  to  the  matter. 
They  assume  that  if  the  Pope  in  the  case  excom- 
municated Cyprian  and  the  other  bishops  who 
advocated  re-baptism,  the  dissenting  churches 
became  schismatical.  This  is  a  mistake.  We 
hope  to  show  in  our  concluding  chapter  that  a 
church  or  an  individual  is  not  rendered  schis- 
matical by  excommunication. 

As  to  the  question  of  fact  it  is  difficult  to  make 
up  one's  mind ;  but  the  arguments  which  have 
been  adduced  to  show  that  the  Pope  on  this 
occasion  actually  excommunicated  the  dissenters 
are  on  the  whole  unconvincing,  particularly  when 
it  is  remembered  that  they  are  based  almost 
exclusively  on  statements  of  his  opponents. 
FirmUian's  letter  unquestionably  creates  difficulty. 
Batiffol,  we  notice,  cites  it  as  supporting  the  view 
that  Stephen's  threat  remained  a  threat,  but  the 
document  appeals  to  us  as  implying  rather  the 
contrary:  "Stephen,"  it  runs,  "has  had  the 
audacity  to  break  the  peace  against  you."  ^  What 
are  we  to  understand  by  a  rupture  of  the  peace,  if 

1  Quod  nunc  Stephanus  ausus  est  facere  rumpens  adversus 
vos  pacem  (Ep.  Ixxv.  6). 

B 


232         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

not  excommunication  ?  In  another  passage/  he 
oharges  the  Pope  with  having  refused  communion 
to  the  delegates  of  dissenting  bishops.  However, 
everyone  understands  that  statements  of  this  kind 
found  in  a  document  which  from  beginning  to  end 
is  a  bitter  invective,  should  be  received  with 
reserve. 

Duchesne  seems  undecided  :  "  Etienne,"  he 
writes,  "  avait  menace  de  rompre  les  rapports  de 
communion.  Donna-t-il  suite  a  sa  menace  ? 
Nous  n'en  savons  rien."  -  But  we  are  not  left 
entirely  to  conjecture.  Cyprian  himself  appears  to 
suggest  that  the  Pope  merely  contemplated  excom- 
munication :  "  Sacerdotes  Dei  veritatem  Christi  et 
ecclesiae  unitatem  tuentes  abstinendos  putat.'"  ^ 
Augustine  states  expressly  that  a  breach  was 
averted :  "  Vicit  pax  Christi,"  he  writes,  "  in 
cordibus  eorum  ut  in  disceptatione  nullum  inter 
eos  malum  schismatis  oriretur."  ^  In  this  he  is 
strongly  supported  by  Eusebius,^  as  well  as  by 
Eacundus  bishop  of  Hermiane  in  Africa,  who,  in 
his  polemical  treatise— "  Liber  contra  Mocianum 
Scholasticum,"  composed  about  571 — states  that 
in  the  Stephen-Cyprian  controversy  there  was  no 
anathematizing.  ® 

1  Ep.  Ixxv.  25.       2  ^gi^  Sep.,  p.  147.      ^  Ep.  Ixxiv.  8. 
*  De  Bapt.  contra  Donat.  v.  26,  36.     cjr.  De  unico  Bapt. 
contra  PetiL  xxiii. 
6  H.  E.  vii.  5. 
®  Nullius  anathematis  interpositione  (Migne  P.  L.  t.  Ixvii). 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  233 

Firmilian,   bishop  of  Caesarea   in   Cappadocia, 

declared  for  the  African  custom.     Supported  by 

his  colleagues  from  Phrygia,  Galatia,  Cilicia,  and 

the    neighbouring    provinces,    he    addressed    to 

Oyprian  an  epistle  ^  in  which  he  set  forth  at  length 

his  views  on  the  value  of  heretical  baptism.     His 

arguments    are    practically    those    of     Cyprian. 

Bishops,  he  contends,  have  received  from  Christ 

through  the  apostles  the  power  of  conferring  the 

sacraments.    Hence  without  the  hierarchy  baptism 

cannot  be  validly  administered  or  received  :    "  All 

power  and  grace  are  established  in  the  Church 

where  the  elders  preside  who  possess  the  power  of 

baptizing,  of  imposing  hands,  and  of  ordaining."  ^ 

Like    Cyprian,    Firmilian    holds    for    a    united 

episcopate — united  despite  certain  differences  in 

matters  of  discipline.    The  diversity  in  practice  in 

the  mode  of  reconciling  heretics  he  does  not  deem 

sufficiently   serious   to   justify   a    breach   of   the 

Catholic  peace. 

With  the  death  of  Stephen  friendly  relations  were 
gradually  re-established  between  the  Holy  See  and 
the  dissenting  churches.  The  new  Pope,  Xystus  II, 
while  adhering  to  the  Roman  custom,  did  not  feel 
called  upon  to  take  strong  action  against  those 
who  still  repudiated  heretical  baptism.  Like  his 
colleagues, — including  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
an  ardent  supporter  of  St.  Stephen  ^ — ^he  seems  to 

1  Ep.  Ixxv.  2  if,^  c.  7. 

3  cfr.  Eus.  H.  E.  vii.  2,  5,  7. 


234  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

have  regarded  the  question  as  of  secondary 
importance,  and  so  the  great  controversy  was 
allowed  to  drop.  Shortly  afterwards  the  Roman 
custom  came  to  be  adopted  by  the  See  of  Carthage 
and  by  the  entire  African  Church.^ 

The  Roman  Primacy 

Cyprian  gave  more  thought  to  the  discipline  and 
government  of  the  local  Church  than  to  the 
ultimate  principles  of  Catholicity.  He  was  a  man 
of  action  rather  than  a  theologian,  and  seems  never 
to  have  thought  out  for  himself  the  ultimate  prin- 
ciples of  that  episcopal  unity  of  which  he  speaks  so 
much. 

The  Church  is  one,  he  holds,  because  the  episco- 
pate is  one  ;  but  there  is  no  bishop  of  bishops 
as  there  was  no  apostle  of  apostles.^  He  knows 
that  the  words  of  promise  Matthew  xvi,  17,  were 
addressed  to  Peter  alone  ;  but  in  his  letters  *  as 
well  as  in  the  tract  De  Unitate*  he  explains  the 
passage  as  implying,  not  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction 
in  Peter  and  his  successors,  but  simply  the  oneness 
of  the  Church  Catholic  and  Local.  It  is  a  forced 
interpretation,  but  it  seems  to  be  the  only  one  put 
forward  by  St.  Cyprian.    This  should  be  conceded. 

^  cfr.  Tixeront,  vol.  cit.,  pp.  375  sqq. 

2  he  Unit,  iv  ;  Epp,  Ixxi.  3  ;  Ixxii.  3  ;  Ixiii.  6. 

3  cfr.  Epp.  xxxiii.  1  ;  lix.  7,  14  ;  Ixvi.  8  ;  Ixxi.  3  ;  Ixxii.  7. 
*  cc.  iv-vi. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR         235 

And  yet  he  proclaims  the  primacy.  The  Roman 
See  he  refers  to  as  "  the  mother  and  root  of  the 
Catholic  Church  "  (Ecclesiae  Catholicae  matrix  et 
radix)  ;  ^  to  communicate  with  the  lawful  Pope  is 
to  hold  the  unity  of  the  CathoUc  Church.^  The 
Roman  Church  is  the  See  of  Peter ;  she  is  the 
ecclesia  principalis  unde  unitas  sacerdotalis  exorta 
esL^  Rome  is  the  source  and  centre  of  Catholic 
unity. 

This  was  acknowledged  in  practice  by  the  saint 
himself  and  by  the  Church  generally.  Even 
heretics  and  schismatics  accepted  '*  the  Roman 
fact."  We  find,  for  example,  that  the  party  of 
the  lapsed  at  Carthage,  having  set  up  Fortunatus 
as  bishop,*  and  having  been  condemned  by  the 
African  Council,  dispatched  the  renegade  deacon 
FeHcissimus  to  Rome,  to  have  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  set  aside  and  to  make  certain 
charges  against  Cyprian.  The  Pope  wrote  to  the 
latter  asking  him  to  explain  matters. 

It  is  significant  that  Cyprian  in  his  reply  does 
not  question  the  legitimacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff's 
interference  in  the  case ;  but  merely  expresses 
"  surprise  "  ^  that  Cornelius  should  have  allowed 
himself  to  be  influenced  by  the  calumniators. 
*'  When  a  bishop,"  he  writes,  "  has  been  appointed 
to  fill  the  place  of  one  deceased,  when  he  is  chosen 

1  Ep.  xlvdii.  3.  3  ify^  lix.  14. 

2  ib.  4  ib.  11. 


236         ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

in  time  of  peace  by  the  suffrage  of  an  entire  people  ; 
...  a  man  who  remaias  faithfully  linked  with  his 
colleagues  ;  .  .  .  who  is  proscribed  in  time  of 
persecution,  and  has  been  again  and  again 
demanded  in  the  circus  "  for  the  lions  " — ^when 
such  a  one  is  assailed,  dearest  brother,  it  is  manifest 
who  assails  him."^ 

He  is  aware  that,  ia  ordinary  circumstances,  a 
bishop  whose  see  becomes  threatened  by  schism, 
or  by  other  dangers,  should  at  once  communicate 
with  Rome.  Hence  he  feels  called  upon  to  excuse 
his  delay  in  reporting  the  affair  of  Fortunatus. 
In  his  eyes,  he  explains,  it  was  a  mere  trifle  :  "  But 
that  I  did  not  immediately  write  to  you,  dearest 
brother,  about  Fortunatus  .  .  .  the  matter  was 
not  such  as  ought  at  once  and  hastily  to  be  brought 
under  your  notice,  as  if  it  were  great  or  to  be 
feared.  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  that  aU  the 
follies  of  heretics  should  be  at  once  made  known  to 
you,  because  it  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  the 
Catholic  Church  to  concern  itself  with  every 
audacity  which  heretics  and  schismatics  may 
attempt  among  themselves."  -  Is  this  the 
language  of  equal  addressing  equal  ? 

Fortunatus  and  his  party  had  just  acknowledged 
the  Roman  primacy.  Condemned  by  an  African 
Council  they  had  appealed  to  Cornelius.  Cyprian 
felt  the  slight :    "  These  men,"  he  writes,  "  not 

1  Ep.  lix.  6.  2  ii^  9. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR  237 

satisfied  with  their  other  crimes,  have  dared  to  set 
sail  and  to  bear  letters  from  schismatic  and  profane 
persons  to  the  throne  of  Peter  and  to  the  chief 
Church  {ecclesia  principalis^  whence  priestly  unity 
flows."  2  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  appeal  ? 
he  asks.  The  i^frican  bishops  have  decreed  that 
the  case  of  everyone  should  be  tried  where  the 
crime  has  been  committed  ;  and  each  bishop  is 
amenable  to  God  alone.  What  then  do  the 
renegades  insinuate  by  appealing  to  the  Pope 
when  they  have  been  judged  and  condemned  by 
an  African  Council  ?  Do  they  consider  our 
authority  insufiicient  (minor)  ?  ^ 

Cyprian  here  denies  to  the  schismatics  the  right 
of  appeal,  and  yet  his  very  letter  of  protest  pro- 
claims the  Roman  primacy.  The  Pope's  right  of 
interference  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church  at  Carthage 
he  does  not  question  ;  he  excuses  his  delay  in 
having  details  of  the  affair  of  Fortunatus  forwarded 
to  the  cathedra  Petri.  Finally,  the  letter  reveals 
the  important  fact  that  the  Carthaginian  schis- 
matics had  appealed  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  from 
the  decision  of  an  African  Council. 

But  some  four  years  later  ^  an  incident  occurred 
which  showed  still  more  clearly  how,  in  practice, 
Cyprian  acknowledged  a  real  primacy  in  the 
Roman  Pontiff.    Marcian,  bishop  of  Aries,  having 

1  The  reader  will  at  once  recall  the  ''potior  principalitas  " 
of  Irenaeus. 

2  Ep.  lix.  14.  3  ib  *  circ.  255. 


238  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

opposed  the  episcopal  body  on  the  question  of  the 
reconciliation  of  the  lapsed,  Cyprian  wrote  to 
Stephen  asking  him  to  have  the  recalcitrant 
prelate  deposed  and  a  successor  appointed.  ^  These 
are  his  words :  "  Wherefore  it  behoves  you  to 
write  a  very  copious  letter  to  our  fellow-bishops 
appointed  in  Gaul,  not  to  suffer  any  longer  that 
Marcian,  forward  and  haughty,  and  hostile  to  the 
divine  mercy  and  to  the  salvation  of  the  brother- 
hood, should  insult  our  assembly,  bcause  he  does 
not  yet  seem  to  be  excommunicated  by  us.  .  .  . 
Let  letters  be  directed  by  you  to  the  province  and 
to  the  people  abiding  at  Aries,  by  which  Marcian 
being  excommunicated  another  may  be  substituted 
in  his  place."  ^  Cyprian  normal  seems  to  accept 
"  the  Roman  fact "  as  a  matter  of  course. 

In  the  autumn  of  254  he  presided  at  a  council 
of  the  African  bishops,  which  might  seem  at  first 
sight  to  have  repudiated  the  primacy  of  the 
Pope :  Two  Spanish  bishops,  Basilides  and  Martialis, 
having  been  deposed  for  grave  crimes,  submitted 
their  case  to  Rome  and  obtained  from  Pope 
Stephen  a  sentence  of  restoration.  The  Spanish 
Churches  concerned,  together  with  the  newly 
appointed  prelates,  Sabinus  and  Felix,  thereupon 
appealed  to  the  Council  of  Carthage  and  had  the 
Pope's  decision  reversed.^ 

1  We  should  add  that  the  bishops  of  Gaul  had  asked  the 
Roman  Pontiff  to  deal  with  Marcian. 

2  Ep.  Ixviii.  2,  3.  ^  254. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MAETYR  239 

But  it  was  not  really  a  case  of  overriding  a 
decision,  in  the  ordinary  sense.  Cyprian  and  his 
council  simply  gave  it  as  their  considered  judgment 
that  Basilides  and  Martialis  had  been  justly 
deposed,  and  declared  that  Stephen's  decision  in 
the  case  might  be  set  aside  without  scruple,  on  the 
grounds  that  it  had  been  based  on  insufficient 
knowledge  of  the  facts.  ^  However,  while  the 
appeal  of  the  deposed  bishops  to  Rome  and  the 
Pope's  sentence  of  restoration  show  that  the 
primacy  was  at  that  time  acknowledged  and 
claimed,  the  further  fact  that  the  Spanish  churches 
subsequently  appealed  to  the  Council  of  Carthage 
against  the  Pope's  decision  shows,  we  admit,  that 
in  certain  quarters  the  principle  of  the  primacy 
was  as  yet  inadequately  grasped. 

Conclusion. — For  Cyprian  the  Church  is  a  body. 
It  constitutes  a  single  organization  controlled  by  a 
united  episcopate :    schism  is  never  lawful. 

But,  while  holding  strongly  for  an  organized 
episcopate,  united  in  opposition  to  heresy  and 
schism,  he  seems  never  to  have  fuUy  grasped  the 
true  principle  of  Catholic  unity.  If  individual 
bishops  are  amenable  to  God  alone,  how  is  a  league 
of  all  the  bishops  to  be  secured  and  maintained  ? 
If  a  member  of  the  episcopal  body  corporate  is 
found  guilty  of  grave  crimes,  or  refuses  to  conform 
to  the  doctrines  or  discipline  of  his  colleagues,  who 
is  to  cut  him  off  ?     Here  Cyprian  is  not  quite  clear. 

1  Ep.  Ixvii.  5. 


240  ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR 

At  one  time  he  seems  to  think  that  it  is  for  the 
entire  local  church,  including  the  laity,  to  deal  with 
such  cases  ;  ^  at  another  time  it  is  an  episcopal 
council ;  -  again  it  is  the  Roman  Pontiff.^ 

Cyprian  is  certain  that  the  Church  is  a  social 
unit ;  certain,  too,  that  her  principle  of  unity  is 
the  united  episcopate  ;  but  that  the  episcopal  unity 
itself  demands  a  principle,  he  admits  in  practice, 
but  not  always  in  theory.  It  would  seem  as  if  he 
never  quite  realized  the  precarious  character  of  that 
episcopal  organization  to  which,  at  times,  he  pinned 
his  faith.  His  ecclesiology,  like  his  theology  of  the 
sacraments,  left  much  to  be  desired. 

That  he  acknowledged  the  Koman  primacy  in 
practice  has  been  shown.  The  history  of  the 
baptismal  controversy  creates  no  special  difficulty 
in  this  connexion.  Cyprian's  stubborn  opposition 
to  the  Pope  was  perfectly  compatible  with  a  recog- 
nition of  the  primacy. 

To  realize  this  one  has  only  to  recall  the 
facts :  Theologians  had  not  yet  thought  out  the 
question  as  to  the  value  of  heretical  baptism. 
Individual  bishops  had  been  left  quite  free  to 
foUow  either  practice  in  reconciling  those  who  came 
to  them  from  heretical  organizations.  Cyprian  and 
his  colleagues  regarded  the  baptismal  controversy 
as  altogether  a  question  of  discipline.     This  is 


^  cjr.  Ep.  Ixvii.  3  {v.  supra).  ^  cfr.  Ep.  lix.  10. 

3  cfr.  Ep.  Ixviii.  2,  3. 


ST.  CYPRIAN,  BISHOP  AND  MARTYR         241 

certain.  They  professed  to  allow  each  bishop  to 
follow  the  custom  which  he  considered  preferable  ^  ; 
and  expressly  disclaimed  any  intention  of  breaking 
the  peace  against  those  who  adopted  the  Roman 
practice.  In  Firmilian's  eyes,  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  mode  of  reconciling  heretics,  like  the 
difference  in  custom  regarding  the  time  for  cele- 
brating Easter,  2  in  no  way  interfered  with  the  bond 
of  peace.  The  rule  of  faith — ^the  Kavcov  eWXj^o-mo-Tt/co? — 
was  respected  by  both  parties.  That  the  rebaptists 
of  the  third  century  failed  so  signally  to  grasp  the 
doctrinal  bearing  of  the  controversy,  is,  of  course, 
remarkable  ;  but  facts  are  facts. 

If  Stephen's  measure  was  merely  disciplinary  he 
could  have  erred.  The  rebaptists  were  convinced 
that  he  had  erred.  The  Koman  practice  they 
considered  theologically  indefensible.  Hence  they 
believed  that  by  acting  upon  the  papal  decree  they 
would  deprive  converted  heretics  of  the  grace  of 
regeneration.  Such  being  their  frame  of  mind, 
who  wiU  deny  that,  subjectively  speaking,  their 
resistance  to  the  decree  was  not  only  licit,  but 
obligatory.  They  were  mistaken,  of  course  ;  but 
their  error  was  invincible.  Noluit  Cyprianus 
rationes  suas,  etsi  non  veras,  quod  eum  latebat,  sed 
tamen  non  fictas,  veraci  quidem  sed  tamen  nondum 
assertae  consuetudini  cedere.^ 


1  Ep.  Ixix.  17  ;  Ixxi.  2  ;  Ixxii.  3  ;  Ixxiii.  26. 

2  Ep.  Ixxv.  6.  3  Aug.  :  De  Bapt.  ii.  18,  13. 


CHAPTER    VIII 
SECTION  A.— THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

History. — The  Donatist  schism  arose  as  a  result 
of  the  persecution  under  Diocletian  (303-305).  It 
caused  a  serious  breach  in  the  African  Church,  just 
as  she  emerged  from  her  last  great  conflict  with  the 
Empire. 

Diocletian  had  spared  no  paius  to  exterminate 
the  Christian  name.  The  faithful  had  been  out- 
lawed. Those  who  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  civil 
authorities  were  ordered,  under  the  gravest 
penalties,  to  offer  incense  to  the  idols.  Churches 
had  been  destroyed  and  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
seized  and  consigned  to  the  flames. 

The  maiQ  body  of  the  Christians  had  stood 
firm.  Many  had  even  sought  the  martyr's  crown 
by  voluntarily  delivering  themselves  up.  These 
were,  however,  not  always  actuated  by  the 
loftiest  motives.  Some  were  insolvent  debtors  or 
notorious  criminals,  who  saw  in  martyrdom  a 
rather  respectable  means  of  escape  from  a  host  of 
creditors  or  from  a  life  of  shame. 

Christians,  who  had  delivered  up  the  Sacred 
Books  or  vessels,  or  who  had  informed  on  their 
fellow-Christians,  were  known  as  traditores.    Some 

242 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  243 

however,  like  Mensurius,  bishop  of  Carthage,  and 
his  deacon,  Caecihan,  were  able  to  evade  the  law 
by  secreting  the  Scriptures,  surrendering  in  their 
stead    some    heretical    or    profane    compositions. 
Others  adopted  the  less  prudent,  if  more  heroic, 
course  of  roundly  refusing  to  deliver  up.    Finally, 
there  were  those  who  went  about  boasting  that 
they  had  in  their  possession  Sacred  Books  which 
they  would  not  relinquish.    While  the  persecution 
was  still  raging,  Mensurius  issued  a  proclamation 
forbidding  the  faithful  to  honour  as  martyrs  or 
confessors  those  who  had  voluntarily  given  them- 
selves up,  or  who  had  paraded  their  heroism  in 
refusing   to    surrender    copies    of   the    Scriptures 
which  they  possessed. 

On  the  death  of  Mensurius  in  311,  Caecilian  was 
elected  to  succeed,  the  defeated  candidates  being 
the  presbyters  Botrus  and  Coelestius.  The  new 
prelate  was  duly  consecrated  by  Felix,  bishop  of 
Abtughi ;  but  the  validity  of  the  consecration  was 
immediately  questioned,  on  the  ground  that  the 
consecrating  minister  was  known  to  have  been  a 
traditor.  Botrus  and  Coelestius,  supported  by  a 
rich  lady  named  Lucilla,  who  had  a  grudge  against 
Caecihan,  communicated  with  the  African  bishops, 
and  a  largely  attended  council  was  convened  at 
Carthage  to  inquire  into  the  matter. 

Secundus,  the  primate  of  Numidia,  presided. 
Caecihan  would  not  appear.  The  assembled 
bishops,    thereupon,    declared    his    consecration 


244  THE  DONATIST   SCHISM 

invalid,  because  performed  by  a  traditor ;  and  a 
new  bishop  was  straightway  elected  and  conse- 
crated, in  the  person  of  Majorinus,  a  lector  of  the 
Church  of  Carthage  and  a  creature  of  the  vindictive 
Lucilla  (312).  Three  years  later  (315),  Majorinus 
died  and  was  succeeded  by  Donatus  the  Great,  the 
schismatical  bishop  of  Carthage,  from  whom  the 
new  sect  took  its  name.^ 

The  breach  rapidly  extended  to  the  provinces. 
Christians  everywhere  became  divided ;  part 
declaring  for  Majorinus  or  Donatus,  and  part  for 
Caecilian.  Each  section  had  its  own  hierarchy  and 
ministers  ;  and  separate  churches  were  to  be  found 
in  almost  every  district  and  city.  Bishop  was  set 
up  against  bishop  and  altar  against  altar. 

At  one  time  it  seemed  as  if  the  accession  of 
Constantine  (312)  would  bring  the  parties  together. 
In  313  the  Donatists  petitioned  the  new  Emperor 
to  have  the  entire  case  examined  and  judged  by  a 
council  of  bishops  from  Gaul.-  Constantine 
refused:  the  inquiry,  he  said,  must  be  held  at 
Rome,  the  personnel  of  the  council  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Pope.  At  the  same  time,  in  order  to 
reassure  the  Separatists,  he  ordered  three 
prominent  Galilean  prelates  to  assist  at  the 
investigation.     The  bishop  of  Carthage  was  cited 


1  Some  think  that  the  Donatists  were  called  after  an  earlier 
Donatus,  bishop  of  Casa  Nigra,  who  took  part  in  the  pseudo- 
couneil  of  312. 

2  St.  Optat.  :  De  Schism.  Donat.  i.  22. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  245 

to  appear,  with  ten  Donatist  bishops  and  ten  of 
those  who  supported  CaeciUan.^ 

The  council,  which  lasted  three  days,  decided 
unanimously  for  CaeciUan  ^  and  sentence  was 
pronounced  accordingly  by  Pope  Melchiades. 
Separatist  bishops  who  returned  to  communion 
were  to  retain  their  sees  or  be  provided  with  others. 
The  terms  of  settlement  were  generous. 

The  Donatists,  however,  were  resolved  to  hold 
out.  A  fresh  inquiry  was  demanded  ;  and  Con- 
stantino, having  regard  to  their  numbers,  was 
persuaded  to  yield.  He  accordingly  summoned  the 
bishops  of  his  entire  dominions  to  assemble  at 
Aries  on  the  kalends  of  August  314,  to  reconsider 
the  case.  About  fifty  sees,  including  those  of 
London,  York,  and  Lincoln,^  were  represented  at 
the  council.  Pope  Sylvester,  who  had  succeeded  to 
Melchiades,  was  represented  by  two  priests  and 
two  deacons. 

The  council  condemned  the  Separatists,  upheld 
the  validity  of  ordination  by  a  traditor,  and 
reprobated  the  practice  of  rebaptism.  To  no 
purpose,  however  ;  the  Donatists,  setting  aside  the 
verdict,  appealed  from  the  council  to  Constantine 
himself. 

The  Emperor  was  puzzled.  But,  reahzing  at 
length  that  any  attempt  to  heal  the  schism  by  a 

1  Eua.  H.  E.x.  5;  cfr.  Gest.  Coll.  iii.  319. 

2  St.  Opt.  :  op.  cit.  i.  24  ;  Gest.  Coll.  iii.  320-326. 
5  cfr.  Cath.  EncycL,  vol.  v,  p.  124. 


246  THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

conciliar  decision  was  almost  certain  to  prove 
abortive,  he  made  up  his  mind  to  adjust  the  entire 
dispute  in  person.  Accordingly,  he  had  an  official 
inquiry  held  at  Carthage  in  31 5,^  where  it  was 
proved  conclusively  that  the  charge  of  traditio 
which  had  been  made  against  Felix  of  Abtughi  was 
utterly  without  foundation.  For  the  Donatists 
this  was,  of  course,  a  fatal  blow  ;  it  struck  at  the 
very  roots  of  their  schism.  Durmg  the  following 
year  (316)  Constantine  summoned  CaeciHan  and 
Donatus  to  appear  before  him  at  Milan  ;  and, 
having  heard  both  sides  with  great  care,  gave  his 
decision  in  favour  of  Caecilian.^  With  a  view, 
however,  to  uniting  the  parties  more  effectually, 
he  detained  the  rival  prelates,  and  dispatched  two 
Italian  bishops,  Eunomius  and  Olympus,  to 
Carthage,  with  instructions  to  have  a  new  bishop 
elected  whom  both  sections  would  be  willing  to 
acknowledge.  The  Separatists  would  not  agree  to 
this ;  and  the  delegates  were  forced  to  return  to 
the  Emperor  leaving  matters  as  they  were. 

Constantine  now  resolved  to  take  strong  action. 
He  determined  that  those  who  had  ignored  the 
decisions  of  heaven  and  earth  should  yield  to  force. 
All  Donatist  conventicles  were  ordered  to  be 
confiscated,  and  the  churches  which  had  been 
seized  by  the  Separatists  were  to  be  immediately 

1  Cath.  Encycl,  vol.  v,  p.  124. 

2  cfr.  Gest.  Coll.  iii.  456,  460,  494  ;  Brev.  Coll.  iii.  37,  38  ; 
Contra  Cels.  iii.  82. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  247 

restored.  His  instructions  were  carried  out  with 
the  assistance  of  the  military  ;  and  nasty  scenes 
followed,  not  unfrequently  attended  with  blood- 
shed. The  schismatics,  of  course,  took  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  to  proclaim  themselves  "  the 
Church  of  the  Martyrs  "  ;  and  spoke  with  holy 
indignation  of  the  "Persecution  of  Caecilian." 
Constantino  felt  that  he  had  blundered. 

Finally,  in  321,  he  adopted  in  despair  the  policy 
of  toleration.  Both  parties,  he  thought,  could, 
by  exercising  a  little  forbearance,  continue  to  live 
in  peace  side  by  side.  Catholics,  accordingly,  were, 
advised  to  bear  with  the  Donatists.^  But,  once 
more,  the  Emperor's  plans  were  frustrated.  The 
schismatics  refused  to  tolerate  "  the  church  of  the 
traditors."  Deeds  of  violence  were  freely  resorted 
to  ;  Catholic  churches  were  appropriated ;  while 
the  clergy,  in  many  cases,  were  seized  and  sub- 
jected to  all  manner  of  indignities. 

The  Circumcellions. — In  this  connexion  reference 
should  be  made  to  the  "  Circumcellions,"  a  gang 
of  nomad  desperadoes  who  strove  to  promote  the 
cause  of  the  Separatists  by  perpetrating  unspeak- 
able outrages  on  defenceless  Catholics.  Armed 
with  clubs  these  soi-disant  "  soldiers  of  Christ " 
were  to  be  met  with  in  almost  every  district  in  the 
time  of  St.  Augustine.    Numbers  of  Catholics,  lay 


1  cfr.   Qeet.    Coll.    iii.    549-662 ;  Ep.   cxii.    9 ;  Brev.    Coll. 
iii.  40-42. 


248  THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

and  clerical,  were  beaten  to  death  and  had  their 
property  plundered.  The  bandits  themselves,  not 
unfrequently,  sought  the  martyr's  crown,  by  com- 
mitting suicide,  or  by  having  themselves 
slaughtered  wholesale  by  the  pagans.  They  were 
religious  maniacs. 

It  was  only  in  347  that  peace  was  temporarily 
restored.  In  that  year  the  Emperor  Constans  sent 
two  envoys,  Paulus  and  Macarius,  with  large  sums 
of  money  for  distribution  among  the  Africans, 
in  the  hope  of  inducing  the  parties  to  come  together. 
But  the  envoys  were  so  badly  received  by  the 
schismatics  that  Macarius  was  forced  to  requisition 
the  assistance  of  a  military  escort  against  attacks 
from  the  Circumcellions.  A  band  of  these  despera- 
does encountered  his  escort  at  Bagai  in  Numidia, 
and  a  melee  ensued  in  which  a  few  soldiers  and 
a  number  of  the  attacking  party  were  killed. 
This  regrettable  incident  embittered  the  Separa- 
tists, who  believed — though  wrongly — that  the 
Emperor's  action  had  been  inspired  by  the  followers 
of  Caecilian.  In  derision  they  styled  the  Catholics 
"  Macarians." 

A  period  of  "  persecution "  followed.  The 
envoys  commanded  the  indomitable  "  servants  of 
God,"  under  the  gravest  penalties,  to  return  to 
communion.  Many  of  the  Donatist  bishops  with 
their  followers  immediately  fled  the  country.  All 
who  remained  and  who  refused  to  join  the  Catholics 
were  banished,  among  them  being  Donatus  himself, 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  249 

who  died  in  exile  about  355.  Peace  was  thus 
happily  restored. 

It  was,  however,  a  mere  breathing-space.  With 
the  accession  of  Julian  the  Apostate  in  361  the 
struggle  was  resumed.  The  exiled  Donatists 
were  reprieved,  officially  reinstated  in  their  basili- 
cas, and  granted  full  liberty  of  action.^  The 
excesses  committed  by  them  on  their  return  from 
banishment  baffle  description.  ^  Rioting,  murder, 
rape,  wanton  destruction  of  churches  and  church- 
property,  desecration  of  sacred  utensils,  assaults 
on  the  clergy, — ^these  were  some  of  the  means  which 
they  employed  to  avenge  themselves  upon  the 
"  traditors." 

Five  years  later  the  tide  again  turned.  The 
Donatists,  having  lent  their  support  to  Firmus  in 
his  revolt  against  Julian,  drew  upon  themselves 
the  imperial  vengeance.  Several  new  edicts  were 
issued  against  them  and  old  enactments  reinforced. 
Julian's  successors  kept  up  the  pressure.  Gratian, 
for  example,  decreed  that  all  Donatist  churches 
were  to  be  transferred  to  the  Catholics. 

The  Separatists  were  by  this  time  gradually 
falling  into  disrepute.  The  extravagances  of 
the  Circumcellions  had  brought  discredit  on 
them,  and  many  of  their  bishops  had  been  con- 
victed of  serious  crimes.    Two  had  been  guilty  of 

1  St.  Opt.  :  De  Schism.  Don.  ii.  16  ;  Aug.  :  Ep.  xciii.  12  ; 
cv.  9. 

2  St.  Opt.  :  op.  cit.  ii.  17,  18. 


260  THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

open  immorality,  while  a  third,  Silvanus,  was 
proved  to  have  been  a  traditor  under  Diocletian. 
The  Separatist  prelates  who  had  consecrated 
Majorinus  Avere  also  proved  to  have  been  traditors.* 
Finally,  the  rise  of  numerous  divisions  among  the 
schismatics  themselves  heralded  the  approaching 
dissolution  of  the  entire  organization. 

The  most  notable  of  these  divisions  occurred  in 
the  "  mother-church "  itself.  Maximianus,  a 
Donatist  deacon  at  Carthage,  was  excommuni- 
cated by  his  bishop  Primianus.  The  deacon  re- 
sisted, and  had  a  council  of  forty-three  schis- 
matical  prelates  summoned  to  examine  his  case. 
Primianus  refused  to  appear,  and  was  deposed  by 
a  second  council  held  at  Cebarsussum  in  393, 
Maximian  being  appointed  in  his  stead.  ^  A  schism 
ensued.  The  Carthaginian  Donatists,  lay  and 
clerical,  became  divided,  some  declaring  for  the 
new  bishop,  the  others  rallying  to  Primianus. 

Maximian  and  his  supporters  were  condemned 
by  a  council  of  three  hundred  and  ten  Separatist 
bishops  held  at  Bagai  in  April  of  the  following 
year ;  and  those  who  refused  to  return  to  "  com- 
munion "  were  treated  and  persecuted  as  schis- 
matics. 

Donatism  received  its  death-blow  in  411,  when 
the  utter  weakness  of  the  system  was  publicly 

^  Aug.  :  Epp.  xliii.  17  ;  liii.  4  ;  De  Unit.  Ecd.  xlvi ;  Contra 
Cresc.  iii.  32,  84. 
2  Contra  litt.  Petil.  i.  24. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  251 

exposed.  In  that  year  the  Emperor  Honorius,  at 
the  request  of  the  Catholic  bishops,  organized  a 
conference  to  be  held  at  Carthage  under  the 
presidency  of  his  own  legate,  Marcellinus.  Dona- 
tists  and  Catholics  were  summoned  to  attend  in 
force,  and  the  parties  were  given  every  opportunity 
for  adequate  explanation  and  defence  of  their 
respective  positions.  On  the  third  day  the  Donatist 
defence  broke  down  hopelessly,  and  the  cognitor 
gave  his  formal  verdict  in  favour  of  the  Catholics. 
The  Separatists  never  recovered  from  this  blow. 
Their  prestige  was  gone.  A  remnant  continued  to 
hold  out  until  the  Saracen  invasion  of  637,  when 
they  finally  disappeared. 

Doctrinal  Position. — The  Donatists  were  never 
condemned  as  heretics.  They  themselves  indig- 
nantly repudiated  the  charge  of  doctrinal 
illegitimacy,  and  frequently  protested  against  the 
injustice  of  enforcing  agamst  them  imperial  laws 
which  had  been  enacted  to  suppress  heresy.  And 
yet,  as  St.  Augustine  clearly  showed,  many  of  their 
doctrines  clashed  with  the  received  faith  and  with 
the  teaching  of  the  Church. 

Adopting  the  principles  of  St.  Cyprian,  they  held 
that  baptism  administered  by  heretics  or  schis- 
matics is  null  and  void.  They  even  maintained 
that  the  valid  administration  of  any  sacrament  is 
conditioned  by  the  probity  of  the  minister. 
Sinners,  they  held,  have  no  power  to  baptize, 
confirm,  ordain,  or  consecrate.    He  who  is  without 


262  THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

grace    cannot  give    grace ;    nemo    dat   quod  non 
hahet.^ 

They  were  at  once  confronted  with  a  serious 
difficulty.  If  the  sacraments  can  be  validly 
administered  only  by  those  who  are  themselves  in 
the  state  of  grace,  how  can  we  be  satisfied  that  we 
have  really  received  the  sacrament  ?  One  cannot 
lay  bare  the  conscience  of  the  minister.  Incon- 
sistently, the  Donatists  replied  that  it  is  only 
public  or  notorious  sinners,  such  as  apostates  or 
traditors,  who  are  incapable  of  validly  adminis- 
tering the  sacraments :  "  Quamvis  haheat 
{minister)  conscientiam  maculosamy  mihi  tamen, 
qui  ah  eo  haptizor,  quia  latet  et  nescio,  sufflcit  quod 
ah  eo  accipio  cuius  innocentem  quia  in  ecclesia  est 
conscientiam  puto.  Nam  ideo  conscientiam  dantis 
attendo,  non  ut,  quod  fieri  non  potest,  de  latentihus 
iudicem,  sed  ut  si  quid  de  illo  in  puhlica  conscientia 
est,  non  ignorem,^^  ^  Those  who  received  baptism, 
confirmation,  or  ordination,  at  the  hands  of  heretics, 
schismatics,  or  other  public  sinners,  had  these 
sacraments  repeated  on  their  admission  to  the 
Donatist  communion  ;  while  the  Eucharist  conse- 
crated by  a  Catholic  priest  was  regarded  by  them 
as  mere  bread  and  thrown  to  the  dogs. 

In  practice,  however,  they  frequently  ignored 


i  cfr.  Opt.  :  op.  cit.  v.  6,  7  ;  Aug.  :  Contra  litt.  Petil.  ii.  6  sqq. ; 
Contra  Ep.  Farm.  ii.  32. 
2  Aug. ;  Contra  Cresc.  ii.  21. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  253 

their  own  principles.  When  a  Maximianist  bishop 
returned  to  the  communion  of  the  Primianists,  for 
example,  he  and  his  entire  flock  were  admitted  to 
"  fellowship  "  without  rebaptism.  Then,  a  number 
of  the  Donatist  bishops  were  notorious  sinners ; 
many,  as  we  have  seen,  were  convicted  of  traditio. 
Optatus,  bishop  of  Thamugadi,  for  many  years  the 
official  head  of  the  Donatists,  was  a  public  sinner 
and  a  disgrace  to  the  Christian  name.  Aided  and 
abetted  by  Gildo,  the  Count  of  Africa,  he  proved 
himself  a  ruthless  tyrant  and  a  slave  to  almost 
every  vice. 

Ecdesiology. — The  Donatists  were  professedly 
puritans.  The  true  Church,  they  held,  is  declared 
in  Sacred  Scripture  to  be  essentially  immaculate. 
She  is  Christ's  holy  and  spotless  bride :  "  Ostendi- 
mils  ecclesiam  Domini  in  scripturis  divinis 
sanctam  et  immaculatam  fore  ubique  nuntiatam  "  * 
Sinners  are  outside  the  Church. 

But  again  the  schismatics  revealed  the  weakness 
of  their  position  by  holding  that  the  Bride  of  Christ 
is  defiled,  not  by  secret  sin,  but  only  by  crimes 
which  are  notorious  or  manifest.  Christians,  they 
asserted,  are  unchurched  only  by  such  sins  as 
public  immorality,  apostasy,  heresy,  traditio,  or 
schism.  Their  inconsistency  in  communicating 
with  notorious  criminals,  like  Optatus  of  Thamu- 
gadi, was,  of  course,  manifest. 

1  Gest.  Coll  ill.  258. 


264  THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

All  who  communicated  with  traditors,  schis- 
matics, or  other  public  sinners,  were  themselves 
necessarily  excommunicate.  The  entire  Christian 
world,  with  the  exception  of  a  portion  of  Africa, 
was,  therefore,  outside  the  Church.  Practically  the 
whole  of  Christendom  was  in  commimion  with  the 
"  traditors."  Donatism  never  succeeded  in  propa- 
gating itself.  Outside  Africa,  there  was  only  one 
Donatist  congregation — at  Rome,  >Ahere  the 
Separatists  established  a  succession  of  anti-popes 
beginning  with  Victor.  ^  In  Spain  they  set  up  a 
bishop,  but  the  people  refused  to  follow  him. 

The  Donatists,  we  must  remember,  held  strongly 
that  the  true  Church  of  Christ  is  one,  holy,  catholic, 
and  apostolical.  All  these  notes,  they  claimed, 
were  found  in  "the  Church  of  the  Martyrs"  and 
in  her  alone. 

To  begin  with,  she  \a  as  one.  Donatists  consti- 
tuted a  social  unit,  a  single  organization  rounded 
off  and  distinct  from  pagans  and  schismatics  of 
every  description.  Caecilians,  Rogatists,  Maxi- 
mianists,  and  all  who  held  communion  with  any  of 
these  were  outside  the  fold. 

Their  church  was  holy.  The  Donatists  professed 
to  be  an  association  of  saints.  Secret  vice,  they 
maintained,  was  not  incompatible  with  the  stain- 
lessness  of  the  Bride  of  Christ ;  and  they  would  not 
allow  that  any  member  of  their  communion  was 

*  St,  Opt.  :  op.  cit.  ii.  4.. 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  255 

guilty  of  public  or  notorious  sin.  The  churcli  of 
the  "traditors,"  being  an  association  of  public 
sinners  and  of  excommunicates,  was  defiled,  and 
hence  could  not  possibly  be  the  true  church. 

They  even  claimed  Catholicity.  This  was 
startling,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  they  were  pitted 
against  Christendom.  But  they  explained :  The 
true  Church  of  Christ,  they  said,  is  certainly 
Catholic.  The  word  *  catholic,'  however,  should 
not  be  understood  of  mere  territorial  universality. 
True  Catholicity  is  something  higher,  and  consists 
in  the  full  possession  of  the  sacraments,  in  perfec- 
tion and  in  stainlessness :  "  Catholicmn  nomen 
putant  ad  provincias  vel  ad  gentes  referendum, 
cum  hoc  est  catholicum  nomen  quod  sacramentis 
plenum  est,  quod  perfectum  quod  immaculatmn 
non  ad  gentes.'''  ^ 

Catholicity,  we  need  scarcely  add,  was  the  i-ock 
on  which  Donatism  perished.  Augustme  pointed 
to  the  isolation  of  the  Separatists  as  proof  con- 
clusive that  they  did  not  constitute  the  church  of 
Christ. 

Finally,  the  Donatists  claimed  apostolicity. 
Followers  of  Christ,  they  held,  were  governed  from 
the  beginning  by  a  united  episcopate  ;  and  the 
continuity  of  the  episcopal  succession  guaranteed 
the  endurance  of  the  Church.  But  the  Donatist 
bishops  alone,  they  contended,  were  the  legitimate 
successors  of  the  apostles  ;  and  hence  the  organiza- 

1  Gest.  Coll.  iii.  102. 


256  THE  DONATIST  SCHISM 

tion  controlled  by  them,  and  it  alone,  constituted 
the  true  fold.  By  the  schism  of  312  the  re- 
mainder of  Christendom  with  its  hierarchy  had 
become  detached  from  the  legitimate  episcopacy, 
and  consequently  from  the  Church  of  Christ.  St. 
Optatus  ridiculed  this  claim  to  apostolicity.  The 
Chief  See  {cathedra  principalis),  he  wrote,  is 
filled  by  Damasus,  the  legitimate  successor  to  St. 
Peter.  We  are  in  communion  with  Damasus ; 
therefore  our  Cliurch  is  apostolic.^ 

There  is  a  Donatist  anti-pope,  of  course,  but 
what  is  his  standing  ?  What  of  the  first  anti-pope, 
Victor  ?  Can  it  be  held  that  he  was  successor  to 
the  apostles  ?  No  ;  "  erat  filius  sine  patre,  tyro 
sine  principe,  discipulus  sine  magistro,  pastor  sine 
grege,  episcopus  sine  populo.^^  ^ 

Conclusion. —  For  students  of  primitive  Catho- 
licity the  history  of  Donatism  is  eminently  in- 
structive. Throughout  the  protracted  struggle  all 
parties  were  agreed  upon  this :  that  the  Church 
Universal  is  a  social  unit  and  necessarily  such  ; 
she  can  constitute  only  a  single  society.  She  is  one, 
holy,  catholic  and  apostolical.  For  the  Donatists 
as  for  Cyprian  she  is  the  sole  repository  of  grace 
and  of  the  means  of  grace.  Outside  the  Church 
there  is  no  valid  administration  of  sacraments,  no 
salvation. 

Schism  was  absolutely  reprobated    by  "  tradi- 

*  <yp.  cit.  ii.  3.  ^  ^p,  cj^,  jj,  4, 


THE  DONATIST  SCHISM  257 

tors"  and  Donatists  alike.  This  is  the  clearest 
thing  in  the  history  of  the  conflict.  Parmenius, 
like  Augustine,  equiparates  schism  and  apostasy. 
In  the  eyes  of  both  apologists,  to  break  with  the 
true  Church  is  to  perish. 

When  the  schism  occurred  at  Carthage  in  312, 
all  Christians,  includmg  Majorinus  and  his  followers, 
recognized  that  one  or  other  of  the  opposing  parties 
had  put  itself  outside  the  pale  of  salvation.  Such, 
moreover,  was  the  solidarity  of  the  churches,  that 
the  breach  at  Carthage  extended  automatically  to 
the  limits  of  Christendom  ;  and  instead  of  one 
organization  there  appeared  two.  Christians  every- 
where felt  called  upon  to  make  a  choice.  To 
communicate  with  one  party  was  to  be  excom- 
municated by  the  other  and  only  one  of  the  rival 
organizations  could  be  the  Bride  of  Christ. 

From  the  Separatist  view-point,  of  course,  prac- 
tically the  whole  of  Christendom  by  communicating 
with  Caecilian  had  broken  with  the  true  Church. 
Hence  when  the  Eastern  bishops  on  the  occasion 
of  the  council  of  Sardica  (342),  endeavoured  to 
induce  Donatus  to  come  to  terms,  he  simply  refused 
so  much  as  to  deal  with  them,  on  the  ground  that 
they  had  cut  themselves  off  from  the  Church  of 
Christ—"  the  Church  of  the  Martyrs."  The  visible 
organic  unity  and  indivisibility  of  the  Church  were 
never  more  clearly  or  more  consistently  proclaimed 
than  by  the  African  Separatists. 


SECTION  B.— THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE 

Rule  of  Faith. — -The  principle  of  the  deposit  is 
upheld  by  Augustine  no  less  than  by  his  pre- 
decessors. For  him  science  is  the  handmaid  of 
faith  :  "  We  understand  that  we  may  believe  ^  .  . 
Ratio  antecedit  fidem.'^  ^  Reason  and  philosophy 
examine  the  credentials  of  revelation,^  and  help 
us  to  analyse  and  establish  independently  much  of 
its  content.*  Having  made  good  the  preambles, 
however,  we  receive  the  Gospel  truths,  in  the  first 
instance,  solely  on  authority.^  The  apostolic 
tradition  written^  and  unv/ritten,'  guaranteed,  as 
it  is,  and  interpreted  by  the  Church  ^  is  Augustine's 
sole  rule  of  faith  and  of  discipline.  ''  For  my  part," 
he  writes,  "  I  should  not  believe  the  Gospel  were 
I  not  impelled  to  do  so  by  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church."  ' 

Ecdesiology. — The  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ. 
"  Unus    ergo     homo     Christus    caput    ei    corpus. 

1  Serm.  xliii.  9. 

-  Ep.  cxx.  3. 

^  De  ver.  rel.  45,  46. 

*  cjr.  Confess,  vii.  13,  14  ;  contra  Acad.  iii.  43. 
^  Ep.  cxlvii.  7. 

•^  De  Doct.  chr.  ii.  0  ;  De  consens.  Evany,  i.  54  ;  iii.  28  sqq.  ; 
De  civit.  Dei  xi.  3  ;  xviii.  43  ;  De  Gen.  ad  litt.  vii.  42. 
'  De  bapt.  v.  31. 
^  De  Oen.  ad  litt.  lib.  imperf.  i ;  De  bapt.  ii.  5. 

*  Contra  Ep.  fund.  vi. 

268 


THEOLOGY   OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE  239 

Qtiod  est  corpus  Eius  ?  Ecclesia  Eius."  ^  The 
glorified  Jesus  lives  in  His  Church  and  works 
through  her.  She  is  His  immaculate  Spouse,^  one, 
holy,  catholic,  and  apostolical. 

Being  the  body  of  Christ,  the  Church  is  essen- 
tially a  unit.  The  faithful  form  one  body,  one 
association  held  together  by  the  bonds  of  charity  ^ 
and  of  an  external  hierarchy.  Schism  is  separative. 
Mere  heresy  does  not  unchurch  us  ipso  facto ;  *  nor 
do  Separatists  remain  within  the  fold  merely  by 
adhering  to  the  true  faith.  ^  To  break  with  the 
Church  is  to  break  with  all  the  means  of  salvation  : 
Extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus.^ 

As  a  society  the  Church  is  in  exclusive  possession 
of  the  means  of  sanctification.  In  this  consists  her 
essential  holiness.  Hence  she  remains  a  spotless 
bride,  despite  the  wickedness  of  her  children.  The 
Church  is  an  assemblage  of  good  men  and  bad  ; 
the  body  of  Christ  is  a  corpus  permixtum.'^ 

Finally,  the  Church  is  catholic  and  apostolical. 
As  has  already  been  shown,  Augustine  confounded 
the  Donatists  by  simply  pointing  to  their  isolation. 
The  Church  of  the  Scriptures,  he  argued,  is  catholic ; 


^  Enarr.  in  Ps.  cxxvii. 

2  ib.  Ixxxviii. 

^  Contra  Cresc.  i.  34  ;  contra  litt.  Petil.  ii.  172. 

*  efr.  De  Civit.  Dei.  xviii,  51,  1, 
5  Contra  Cresc.  i.  34. 

•  De  bapt.  iv.  24, 

7  De  Doct.  Chr.  iii.  45. 


260  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE 

est  toto  orhe  diffusa.^  Like  Irenaeus,  he  established 
the  apostolicity  of  the  Catholic  hierarchy  merely  by 
making  good  the  continuity  of  the  episcopal 
succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome.^  For  Augustine 
to  commune  with  the  See  of  Peter  was  to  belong 
to  the  true  Church.^ 

Theology  of  the  Sacraments. — Sacramental 
theology  owes  much  to  the  saintly  bishop  of  Hippo. 
Before  his  time,  as  we  have  seen,  a  large  section 
of  Christendom  held  erroneous  views  as  to  the  value 
of  sacraments  administered  by  heretics.  For  the 
rebaptists  of  the  third  century  sacraments  illicitly 
administered  were  null.  "  Quod  (baptisma)  nos 
nee  ratum  possumus  computare  quando  hoc  apud  nos 
constat  esse  illicitum.'"  ^  The  validity  of  the 
sacraments  they  held  to  be  conditioned  by  the 
faith  of  the  minister  and  of  the  subject ;  while  their 
successors,  the  Donatists,  went  further  and  main- 
tained that  no  sacrament  can  be  validly  adminis- 
tered by  one  who  is  notoriously  or  publicly 
unworthy. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who,  with  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  upheld  the  validity  of  heretical  baptism, 
were  unable  to  give  a  satisfactory  reason  for  the 
faith  that  was  in  them.  Stephen,  no  doubt,  had 
emphasized  the  efficacy  of  the  sacramental  rite 
itself  {ex  opere  operato) ;  but  it  seemed  a  mere  make- 


1  Serm.  xlvi.  33.  ^  ib.  xliii.  7. 

2  £fp.  lii.  2.  *  Cypr.  :  Ep.  Ixxiii.  1. 


THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE  261 

shift.  How,  he  was  asked,  can  sin  be  remitted  by 
those  who  have  not  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  how 
can  those  who  are  themselves  dead  quicken  others  ? 
Further,  if  the  Romans  regarded  the  sacramental 
rite  as  efficacious  of  itself,  why  did  they  reconfirm 
those  who  were  confirmed  in  heresy  ? 

The  air  was  cleared  somewhat  by  St.  Augustine. 
Tlie  fundamental  distinction  which  he  drew  be- 
tween validity  and  liceity  in  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  and  the  corresponding  distinction 
between  their  valid  and  their  fruitful  reception, 
marked  a  new  stage  in  the  development  of  sacra- 
mental theology.  1  This,  he  explained,  was  the 
great  error  of  the  rebaptists,  that  they  failed  to 
distinguish  the  sacrament  from  the  sacramental 
effect :  "  Non  distinguehatur  sacramentum  ah  effectu 
vel  usu  sacramenti.^^  ^ 

His  own  starting-point  was  the  efficacy 
of  the  sacramental  rite  itself — ex  opere  operato.^ 
Baptism,  wherever  or  by  whomsoever  conferred 
or  received,  he  declared  to  be  valid,  provided 
only  it  be  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.* 


^  We  gather  from  certain  statements  of  Pope  Stephen  and 
of  St.  Optatus  that  the  pre-Augustinian  Church  was  vaguely 
conscious  of  some  such  distinction. 

^  De  bapt.  vi.  1. 

3  ib.  i.  12,  19  ;  V.  21,  29  ;  vi.  2,  4. 

4  ib.  vi.  25,  47. 


262  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE 

The  sacramental  rite  considered  in  itself  is  a  holy 
thing,  because  instituted  by  God,^  Who  is  present 
in  it,  2  and  Who  has  sanctified  it^  and  rendered  it 
efficacious  of  itself."  Hence  it  produces  its  effect 
independently  of  the  faith^  and  probity®  of  either 
minister  or  subject.  Baptism  is  validly  adminis- 
tered and  received  by  sinners  and  even  by  heretics.' 
"  In  ista  quaestione  non  esse  cogitandum  quis  det 
sed  quid  det,  aut  quis  accipiat  sed  quid  (tccijyiat, 
aut  quis  habeat  sed  quid  hdbeaV  * 

But  if  the  Church  be  the  sole  repository  of  the 
means  of  salvation,  how,  it  was  asked,  can  sacra- 
ments be  vahdly  conferred  outside  her  pale  ? 
The  sacraments,  Augustine  replied,  when  validly 
administered,  imprint  on  the  soul  a  character  or 
spiritual  seal  which  cannot  be  effaced.*  Hence 
those  who  are  themselves  validly  baptized  or 
ordained,^"*  retain  the  sacrament  even  in  schism ; 
and,  having  the  spiritual  gift,  can  communicate 


1  Dt  bapt.  iii.  4,  6  ;  iv.  12,  18  ;  v.  21,  29, 

2  lb.  vi.  26,  47. 

3  ib. 

*  ib.  iv.  10. 

^  ib.  iii.  14,  19  ;  iv.  15,  22. 

e  ib.  iii.  10,  16  ;  iv.  21.  28  ;  v.  3,  3  ;  vi.  1,  2. 

7  ib.  i.  1. 

8  ib.  iv.  10. 

9  Contra  Ep.  Farm.  ii.  28,  29. 

^^  In  discussing  the  validity  and  the  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments he  concerns  himself  chiefly  with  Baptism  and  Order. 
But  his  principles  are  of  general  application. 


THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE  263 

it  to  others.  1  To  show  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
character  is  traditional,  he  appeals  to  the  practice 
of  the  universal  Church.  Those  who  were  once 
validly  baptized  or  ordained,  he  said,  and  who 
subsequently  separated  themselves,  were  never 
rebaptized  or  reordained  on  their  return  to  com- 
munion.^ 

Does  a  schismatical  minister,  then,  confer  the 
spiritual  gift  independently  of  Christ  and  of  His 
Spouse  the  Church  ?  No  ;  the  sacraments  which  he 
administers  are  fundamentally  not  his,  but  those 
of  the  Church.^  Besides,  in  conferring  the  sacred 
gift,  he  is  a  mere  instrument ;  Christ  is  the  principal 
agent.  He  is  the  real  donor,  the  chief  minister. 
From  the  view-point  of  validity,  therefore,  the 
spiritual  condition  of  the  human  agent  matters  not. 
It  is  Christ  Himself  who  baptizes  and  ordains.* 

But  not  every  valid  administration  is  lawful  or 
fruitful:  ^'  Dico  sacramentum  Christi  et  honos  et 
malos  posse  habere,  posse  dare,  posse  accipere^  et 
honos  quidem  utiliter  et  saluhriter ;  malos  autem 
perniciose  et  poenaliter''  '"  If  the  minister  be 
a  heretic  or  a  sinner,  his  administration,  positis 
ponendis,  is  valid,  but  unlawful.  As  to  the  subject, 
if  duly  disposed,  he  receives  the  sacrament  validly 


1  De  bapt.  i.  2, 

2  ib.  i.  2. 

3  ib.  i.  10,  14  ;  15,  23  ;  Oonfra  litt.  Petil.  ii.  69. 
*  cfr.  In  Joann.  v.  7  ;  Ep.  Ixxxix.  5. 

6  De  Bapt.  vi.  2,  4. 


264  THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE 

and  fruitfully ;  though  it  be  conferred  by  the 
greatest  sinner.^  On  the  other  hand,  if  not  dis- 
posed, he  receives  the  sacrament  validly,  but 
unfruitfuUy.  In  this  case  the  character  remains, 
and  bears  fruit  when  the  obstacle  to  its  action  is 
removed  by  penance. 

A  catechumen  may  be  validly  and  even  fruitfully 
baptized  by  heretics,  provided  he  is  careful  not  to 
league  himself  with  them,  and  provided  also  he  has 
sufficient  reason  for  availing  himself  of  the  services 
of  a  separatist  minister.  ^  It  would  seem  that  in  the 
eyes  of  Augustine  membership  in  an  heretical  sect 
is  in  all  cases  an  obstacle  to  the  infusion  of  grace. 
A  Christian  who  has  been  baptized  in  schism  obtains 
the  '  use  '  of  his  baptism ^  and  the  remission  of  his 
sins^  only  on  admission  to  the  Church.  Grace  and 
regeneration  are  secured  through  charity ;  and 
charity  is  found  only  in  the  CathoUc  communion.^ 

For  Augustine,  as  for  the  majority  of  his  pre- 
decessors, the  Church  is  the  exclusive  repository  of 
grace  and  of  the  means  of  grace ;  in  ea  sola 
haptismus  saluhriter  habeturJ  In  schismatical  sects 
the  sacraments  can  be  received  validly,  but  never 
fruitfully.  Catechumens  who,  even  in  good  faith, 
are  baptized  in  schism  receive  the  character  alone  ; 

1  Contra  litt.  Petil.  i.  3. 

-  De  bapt.  vi.  2,  4. 

"^  ib.  i.  5  ;  8,  11  ;  12,  18  ;  13,  21. 

*  ih.  i.  18  ;  iii.  13  ;  v.  9  ;  vi.  5,  7  ;  Contra  Ep.  Farm.  ii.  28. 

-  De  bapt.  iii.  16,  21. 
^  Contra  Cresc.  i.  34. 


THEOLOGY  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE  265 

they  are  not  regenerated.  ^  Such  seems  to  have 
been  the  view  of  St.  Augustme.  In  his  eyes, 
grace,  the  spirit,  and  remission  of  sin,  could  be 
had  only  in  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

The  principle  of  the  Sacramental  character 
applies  to  Catholics  no  less  than  to  Separatists. 
Members  of  the  true  Church  who,  through  lack  of 
the  proper  dispositions,  receive  baptism  unworthily, 
obtain  the  fruit  of  the  sacrament  only  when  the 
obstacle  has  been  removed  ^ :  "  [Remoto  obice] 
prodesse  incipit  quod  ante  non  proderat  sed  tamen 
ineratJ  Aliud  est  non  habere^  aliud  non  utiliter 
habere.  Qui  non  habet  est  baptizandus  ut  habeat  ; 
qui  autem  non  utiliter  habet,  ut  utiliter  habeat 
corrigendus.'^  * 


^  cfr.  De  bapt.  i.  6. 

2  ib.  iii.  3,  4. 

3  ib.  V.  18,  24. 

*  ib.  iv.  17,  24  ;  cfr.  Diet,  de  Thiol  Oath.,  vol.  ii,  p.  225  ; 
Tix.  :  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  352  sqq. 


GENERAL    SUMMARY 

Historical  Christianity  was  a  religion  of  authority 
because  based  on  a  revelation.  The  gospel  was 
not  a  "  wisdom,"  but  a  SiSaxri.  It  imposed  itself. 
It  was  a  preceptive  and  doctrinal  catachesis  ;  it 
prescribed  something  to  do  as  well  as  something 
to  believe.  So  completely  were  the  early  Christians 
dominated  by  the  principle  of  the  SiSaxv,  that  they 
were  regarded  by  outsiders  as  an  unreasoning 
'7r\r}6os.  Everything  was  accepted  on  authority  ; 
philosophizing  brethren  were  suspect. 

Christianity  was  a  deposit  of  divine  truths  and 
precepts  entrusted  by  Christ  to  His  apostles,  to 
be  preserved  intact  for  the  enlightenment  and 
salvation  of  men.  Not  all  the  elements  in  the 
new  revelation,  however,  were  equally  new.  The 
deposit  continued  to  grow  until  the  death  of  the 
last  apostle,  when  it  ceased  to  be  susceptible  of 
change.^  Succeeding  generations  were  expected  to 
guard  it  jealously  against  "  the  persuasive  words 
of  human  wisdom  "  and  the  "  traditions  of  men," 
neither  adding  to  nor  takiag  from  it. 

The  gospel  is  thus  a  received  faith,  an  inheritance 
which  has  come  down  to  us  from  Christ,  through 
the  apostles,  and  their  successors.     It  is  a  tradi- 


1  With  the  rise  of  the  Montanists  the  Church  became  ex- 
pKcitly  conscious  of  the  term  of  the  New  Revelation. 

266 


GENERAL  SUMMARY  267 

tional  norm,  a  doctrinal  and  disciplinary  Kavcov. 
Clement  of  Rome  exhorted  the  refractory  Corin- 
thians to  return  eVl  rov  eVKXerj  Kol  aejxvov  r^P 
irapaSoa-ecog   rjfjiSiv    Kavova.^        To   be    saved,    we   must 

hold  fast  to  the  irapaSoa-L^ ;  our  beliefs  and  conduct 
must  be  ordered  by  it.  Anything  which  has  not 
been  handed  down  is  foreign  (dWorpiou)  and 
dangerous.  Heresy  is  inventive,  original ;  it  is  a 
profane  novelty. 

Christianity  denationalised  revelation.  The 
Gospel  was  announced  not  to  Jews  alone,  nor  to 
Gentiles  alone,  but  to  all  men.  Christ's  appeal  was 
not  to  a  people  but  to  the  individual,  and  therefore 
to  all  individuals.  The  new  religion  was  cosmo- 
politan and  catholic. 

Men  are  saved  through  Christ  by  becoming 
invisibly  united  to  Him.  All  who  believe  and  are 
baptized  become  members  of  a  mystical  body 
having  Christ  as  head,  and  grace — the  life  of  the 
Spirit — ^as  animating  principle.  By  baptism  men, 
irrespective  of  race  or  social  standing,  are  made  to 
live  with  the  life  of  Christ.  They  become  members 
of  the  same  Body,  branches  of  the  same  Vine. 

But  historical  Christianity  was  something  more  ; 
it  was  a  church.  Individualism  found  no  place  in 
the  new  movement ;  men  were  called  to  the  faith 
singly,  but  not  solitarily.  The  early  missionaries 
established  societies  wherever  they  preached, — 
__— -ijii 

1  Prima  Clem.,  c.  vii. 


268  GENERAL  SUMMARY 

one  in  each  city  or  district, — so  that  with  the  spread 
of  the  Gospel  the  Empire  became  the  home  of  a 
new  Diaspora.  Each  church  was  controlled  by  a 
resident  hierarchy,  selected,  as  a  rule,  by  the  faith- 
ful, but  invariably  ordained  by  the  apostles  or 
their  successors.  Ecclesiastical  superiors  received 
their  authority  "  from  above,"  and  held  office  for 
life. 

Christianity  was  not  a  reformed  Judaism  ;  the 
Church  was  never  a  Jewish  sect.  No  doubt,  it 
required  a  supplementary  revelation  to  induce  the 
apostles  to  admit  the  uncircumcised  to  baptism 
unaccompanied  by  any  observance  of  the  cere- 
monial law  ;  but  history  shows  that,  even  ante- 
cedently to  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and  his 
household,  the  Church  and  the  synagogue  were 
distinct  and  independent  organizations.  Those 
who  would  have  merged  the  new  '  tendency '  in 
Judaism  separated  themselves  at  an  early  stage 
in  the  Christian  development. 

Finally,  there  existed  from  the  very  outset  a 
community  of  communities,  a  Church  of  all  the 
churches.   The  Christian  Diaspora  was  a  social  unit: 

In  each  church  the  apostolic  tradition,  the  opOo^ 
Xoyoff,  was  secured  by  the  faithful  in  and  through 
subjection  to  the  local  hierarchy.  Those  who  were 
with  the  bishop  were  '  of  God  and  Jesus  Christ.' 
Christians,  moreover,  by  conforming  to  their 
respective  bishops,  conformed  to  one  another. 
The  same  faith,  the  same    moral    code,  and  the 


GENERAL  SUMMARY  269 

same  cult,  obtained  everywhere.  Orthodoxy  was 
catholic  de  iure  and  de  facto. 

All  this  implies  organization,  a  league  of  churches, 
a  united  and,  we  may  add,  an  infallible  episcopate. 
If  Christianity  was  not  a  philosophy,  but  a  divine 
SiSaxv,  unchanging  and  statutory ;  and  if  the 
bishops,  each  in  his  own  church,  were  its  sole 
reliable  exponents ;  then  to  universalize  that 
SiSaxv,  without  prejudice  to  its  unity  and  integrity, 
demanded  a  federation  of  bishops  which  was  not 
only  organized,  but  infallible.  Then,  as  now, 
individual  members  of  the  episcopate  were  liable 
to  err. 

It  is  not  suggested  that  during  the  early  cen- 
turies the  Catholic  bishops  were  accustomed  to 
assemble  in  council,  in  order  to  secure  an  all- 
round  adherence  to  the  apostolic  tradition. 
General  councils  were  not  yet  called  for.  The 
tradition,  in  its  main  outlines,  was  sufficientlj'^ 
clear  and  well-known,  to  enable  individual  bishops 
in  ordinary  cases  to  detect  and  condemn  as 
erroneous,  beliefs  and  practices  which  were  at 
variance  with  the  kqvoov.  In  addition,  the  smaller 
communities  were  careful  to  conform  to  the  central 
or  apostolic  churches  and  these  in  turn  to  Rome.^ 

1  Harnack  lays  great  stress  on  those  '  inter-eccIesiastical 
dispositions,'  "  which,"  he  says,  "  secured  in  important 
questions  the  solidarity  of  the  evolution  "  {cfr.  Mission,  vol.  i, 
pp.  369-380,  445  sqq.).  He  denies,  however,  that  Christianity 
became  an  organized  whole  before  the  opening  years  of  the 
third  century. 


270  GENERAL  SUMMARY 

It  is  manifest,  however,  that  even  at  this  stage  an 
organized  episcopate  stood  in  the  background ; 
and  hence,  when  doubts  and  difficulties  arose 
subsequently,  on  questions  of  faith  or  morals,  no 
new  authority  was  created  ;  the  episcopal  body 
corporate,  hitherto  silent,  simply  raised  its  voice 
and  Christendom  was  called  upon  to  hear  the 
Church.  The  rise  of  heresy  was  the  occasion  of  new 
definitions ;  the  contents  of  the  deposit  were 
analysed  and  legitimately  developed  and  doctrines 
once  defined  became  irreformable. 

The  new  Diaspora  was  thus  a  federation,  and  not 
a  mere  mass  of  discrete  units,  each  existing  and 
acting  independently.  Everywhere  in  the  early 
literature  we  find  the  idea  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
an  organized  whole  rounded  off  from  and  opposed 
to  non-Christians  and  to  dissenters  of  every 
description. 

This  visible  organization  of  Catholicity  it  was 
which  enabled  the  Church  to  rid  herself  effectively 
of  everything  '  foreign.'  No  student  of  primitive 
Catholicity  can  fail  to  observe  how  heresy,  at  its 
very  rise,  found  itself  automatically  thrown  off  by 
the  Universal  Church.  If  the  novelty  was  clearly 
at  variance  with  a  doctrine  already  defined,  it  was 
at  once  banned  everywhere  and  its  adherents 
excommunicated.  In  other  cases  its  rise  was  the 
occasion  of  a  definition  with  the  same  result : 
Catholicity  was  so  constructed  that  everything 
strange  was  forced  to  differentiate  itself.  Heretics 
were  relegated  to  the  position  of  dissenters,  and 


GENERAL  SUMMARY  271 

found  the  doors  of  the  Church  of  Christ  closed 
against  them  wherever  they  travelled.  All  this 
witnesses  to  a  federation  of  churches.  Innovators 
were  pitted  against  a  Catholic  organization. 

The  Roman  Church  was  primatial ;  she  was  the 
"  principal  church "  {ecclesia  principalis).  The 
See  of  Peter  was  the  authoritative  centre  of 
Christendom. 

Peter  himself,  during  his  lifetime,  was 
apparently  satisfied  to  act  as  leader,  rather  than 
as  primate  of  the  apostolic  college.  This  was  to  be 
expected.  His  fellow  apostles,  though  really 
subject  to  him,  were  individually  infallible  and 
even  inspired,  and  their  jurisdiction  was  universal. 
An  exercise  of  the  primacy  was  thus  uncalled 
for. 

But  his  successors  not  only  claimed  a 
sovereignty,  but  exercised  it  from  the  first.  Their 
extant  letters,  limited  though  they  are  in  number, 
and  occasional  in  character,  make  it  clear  that 
their  writers  regarded  themselves  as  burdened 
with  the  care  of  all  the  churches.  The  primacy 
was  not  an  usurpation.  Innovations  were  con- 
demned by  none  more  insistently  than  by  the 
Roman  Pontiffs  themselves.  It  is  in  the  text  of  a 
Papal  decree  we  find  the  words :  "  nihil  innovetur 
nisi  quod  traditum  esV 

We  grant,  of  course,  that  the  Ante-Nicene 
Church  did  not  grasp  the  principle  of  the  Roman 
primacy  as  adequately  as  does  the  Catholic  Church 
of  the  twentieth  century.     The  language  of  the 


272  GENERAL  SUMMARY 

early  Popes  was  not  always  '  primatial,'  and  their 
authority  was  occasionally  not  only  resisted,  but 
openly  repudiated.  But  why  should  a  Protestant 
controversialist  cry  victory  when  he  finds  a  Poly- 
crates  or  a  Cyprian  hurling  defiance  at  the  Vicar 
of  Christ,  and  whole  churches  appealing  from  the 
cathedra  Petri  to  a  provincial  council  ?  If  a  doctrine 
in  the  course  of  its  development — and  is  there  not 
evidence  of  development  everywhere  ? — has  had  to 
encounter  a  certain  amount  of  uncertainty  and 
even  of  positive  opposition,  is  it  therefore  to  be 
rejected  as  intrusive  ?  How  many  truths  of  faith 
now  universally  accepted  succeeded  in  making  their 
way  into  the  Creed  unchallenged  ?  How  many 
have  been  held  semper,  ubique  et  ah  omnibus  ? 

We  have  noted,  in  fine,  how  historical  Chris- 
tianity finds  its  justification  in  the  personal 
teaching  of  Jesus.  The  apostles  in  establishing 
religious  societies  wherever  they  preached,  did  not 
act  on  their  own  initiative.  The  local  church  lay 
within  the  horizon  of  the  Galilean  Prophet.  He 
also  arranged  that  there  should  be  a  Church  of 
churches,  ruled  by  the  apostles,  as  a  coUege,  and 
by  their  successors.  Acts  xv  is  the  best  com- 
mentary on  Matthew  xviii,  18.  Lastly,  the  Roman 
primacy  connects  with  Jesus  through  Simon 
Peter. 

Christianity  is  thus  de  facto  and  de  iure  a  visible 
organic  unit.  As  such  it  is  the  Body  of  Christ. 
Baptism  incorporates  us  in  an  Organism  which  is 
at  once  visible   and   invisible.     As  invisible,   its 


GENERAL  SUMMARY  273 

animating  principle  is  grace — the  life  of  the  Spirit. 
As  visible,  it  is  an  external  society  having  as 
unifying  principle  the  central  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment established  by  Christ.  To  divide  the  Church— 
whatever  he  the  form  of  its  government — is  to  divide 
the  Body  of  Christ.    Schism  is  never  lawful. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THEOLOGICAL 

As  this  chapter  professes  to  be  exclusively  theo- 
logical, it  opens  appropriately,  if  somewhat  dryly, 
with  a  definition : 

Schism.^ — rAvanzinus,  in  his  work  De  ConstitU' 
tione  Apostolicae  Sedis,  defines  schism  as  rebellion 
against  the  authority  of  legitimate  ecclesiastical 
superiors.^  This  would  seem  to  be  the  received 
definition.  Assuming,  as  we  do  here,  that  the 
church  is  a  society  ruled  by  a  divinely  constituted 
hierarchy,  in  subjection  to  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
schism  is  adequately  defined  as  a  refusal  to  acknow- 
ledge the  authority  of  the  Pope,  It  is  rebellion  in 
the  church.^ 

The  author  of  the  Summa  states  that  the  sin 

1  Gr.  (Tx^o-fjia  (fr.  (rx^C<^)  '■  lit.  a  fissure  or  rent  (Mt.  ix.  16  ; 
Mk.  ii.  21).  In  an  applied  sense  it  signifies  a  division  or 
dissension,  more  or  less  serious,  in  a  visible  society  (Jo.  vii.  43  ; 
ix.  16  ;  X.  1  Cor.  i.  10 ;  xi.  18  ;  xii.  25). 

2  Op  cit.,  p.  19. 

3  The  term  '  rebellion  '  as  we  use  it  is  sjmonymous  with. 
armed  secession  and  connotes  repudiation  of  the  flag. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  local  or  diocesan  schism,  which 
consists  in  a  refusal  to  recognize  the  authority  of  one's  bishop. 
Local  schism  is  not  at  all  incompatible  with  a  recognition  of 
the  papal  authority  {cfr.  Murray  :  op  cit.,  Disp.  vi,  sect.  i.  25). 

274 


THEOLOGICAL  275 

of  schism  is  directly  and  per  se  opposed  to  ecclesias- 
tical unity.  1  To  understand  his  meaning  we  may 
recall  what  has  been  laid  down  in  our  introduc- 
tion, to  the  effect  that,  properly  speaking,  an 
external  society  is  divided  only  by  rebellion. 
Hence  he  speaks  of  schism  as  a  refusal  to  subject 
oneself  to  the  Pope.^  Suarez  states  that  the  word 
schism  properly  signifies  the  sin  of  those  who 
endeavour  to  divide  the  Church.  "  Members  of  the 
Church  can  cut  themselves  off  from  her,  and  this  is 
what  we  understand  by  schism."  ^  The  concept 
is  traditional.  We  already  know  that  in  the  eyes 
of  the  early  Fathers  the  Church  of  Christ  is  a  social 
unit,  an  organism,  which  is  dismembered  by  schism. 
Schism  is,  therefore,  disobedience  and  something 
more.  "  Disobedience  with  rebellion  constitutes 
schism."  *  Avanzinus  is  more  explicit :  '*  Prae- 
cipuum  criterium  ad  cognoscendum  formale 
schisma  est  videre  utrum  qui  schismatici  dicuntur 
re  et  effectu  studeant  excutere  iugum  supremi  regi- 
minis  Romani  Pontificis.  Namque  hoc  gravissi- 
mum  crimen  facile  confundi  potest  cum  simplici 
inobedientia  quae  non  est  schisma  nisi  supremum 


1  Summa:  2-2,  Q.  39.  1. 

2  lb.  A  schismatic  is  defined  by  Father  Lehmkuhl  as 
one  who  refuses  to  be  subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff  {op  cit., 
vol.  i.  380),  and  by  Murray  as  one  who  rebels  against  the 
Pope  {op  cit.  Disp.  vi.  sect.  i.  21). 

3  Tr.  iii,  Disp.  xii,  sect.  1. 
*  Summa :  loc.  cit. 


276  THEOLOGICAL 

gradum  obtinuerit  quo  re  et  effectu  dbscissio,  sub- 
tractiOy  recessio  sequatur."  *  Murray,  too,  is  careful 
to  emphasize  the  distinction :  "Si  aliquis  legem 
aut  praeceptum  particulare  Pontificis  violet,  non 
ideo  schismaticus  est.  Ita  enim  agere  potest  non 
ex  mente  rebelli  contra  auctoritatem  Pontificis.'*''  ^ 

The  Great  Western  Schism 

If  schism  is  rebellion,  and  if  anything  less  is  not 
schism  at  all,  the  history  of  the  so-called  Great 
Western  Schism  may  be  studied  with  equanimity 
by  Catholic  apologists.  The  episode  affords  no 
basis  for  the  Anglican  contention  that  the  Roman 
Church,  by  canonizing  members  of  each  party  to 
the  dispute,  implicitly  approved  of  the  "  breach- 
within-the-Church  "  theory. 

For  let  us  review  the  facts : — ^On  the  death  of 
Gregory  IX,  the  last  of  the  Avignon  popes, 
Bartholomew  Prignano,  Archbishop  of  Bari,  was 
elected  and  proclaimed  pope,  under  the  title  of 
Urban  VI  (April  9,  1378).  For  four  months  he  was 
acknowledged  by  Christians  everywhere.  Then 
the  majority  of  the  Cardinals  questioned  the 
validity  of  his  election,  called  upon  the  faithful  to 
repudiate  him,  and  later  elected  a  new  pope,  in  the 
person  of  Robert  of  Geneva,  who  took  the  name  of 

^  Op.  cit.,  loc  cit. 

2  Op.  cit.,  Disp.  vi,  sect.  i.  22  ;  cfr.  Rhodes  :  op  cit.,  vol.  it 
pp.  1-4.  , 


THEOLOGICAL  277 

Clement  VII.  The  "  schism  "  was  now  consum- 
mated ;  the  popes  excommunicated  each  other  and 
Christendom  took  sides. 

Anglican  controversialists  refer  triumphantly  to 
the  period  of  the  anti-popes  as  proving  that,  on 
our  own  showing,  there  can  be  schism  within  the 
Church.  But  they  misunderstand.  If  we  assume 
that  one  of  the  rival  pontiffs  was  really  Pope — 
and  we  regard  Urban's  claims  as  practically 
established — then  the  anti-pope  and  his  following 
were  really,  though  in  good  faith,  pitted  against 
their  lawful  sovereign.  But  were  they  in  schism  ? 
We  scarcely  think  so.  Schism  is  rebellion  ;  and  the 
followers  of  the  anti-pope  were  anything  but  rebels. 
What  they  refused  to  acknowledge  was  not  the 
papal  authority,  but  rather  the  claims  of  a  certain 
individual  to  that  authority.  Hence  the  term 
schism  as  applied  to  the  dispute  in  question  is 
really  a  misnomer.^  The  Great  Western  Schism 
was  something  like  the  Wars  of  the  Roses  rather 
than  a  War  of  Independence. 

The  same  must  be  said  if  we  suppose,  with  some, 
that  a  doubtful  pope  is  no  pope,  and  that  accord- 
ingly there  was  really  no  pope  while  the  schism 
(so-called)   endured.     On  this  hypothesis  it  was 


1  The  fact  that  the  division  has  always  been  termed  a  schism 
does  not  startle  us  ;  there  is  little  in  a  name.  Each  obedience 
naturally  denounced  the  other  as  schismatical — it  is  the  fashion 
in  such  cases — and  posterity  has  retained  the  opprobrious 
epithet. 


278  THEOLOGICAL 

again,  as  in  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  a  struggle,  not 
to  set  up  a  new  flag,  but  rather  to  determine  who 
had  a  right  to  the  old.^ 

Dr.  Gore  on  Schism 

Dr.  Gore  devotes  a  whole  chapter  of  his  work  on 
"  Koman  Catholic  Claims  "  to  a  discussion  of  the 
nature  of  schism.  "It  is  so  fully  our  duty,"  he 
writes,  "  to  preserve  the  unity  of  Love  or  outward 
fellowship,  '  the  bond  of  peace,'  that  wDful  schism 
would  annul  all  the  moral  fruits  which  follow  from 
being  constitutionally  within  the  ecclesiastical 
unity.  That  is  to  say,  schism  does  not  merely 
mean  breaking  away  from  the  episcopal  form  of 
government.  The  schisms  of  the  early  Church 
were  episcopal  in  form."  ^ 

What  then  constitutes  the  guilt  of  schism  ? 
*'  Not  merely  being  separated,"  he  replies,  "  for 
the  separated  party  may  not  be  the  guilty  party, 
as,  for  example,  in  the  case  when  Diotrephes 
*  excommunicated  '  the  brethren  who  came  from 
St.  John,  or  Pope  Victor  the  Asiatic  Churches,  or 
Pope  Stephen,  St.  Cyprian  and  the  African 
Churches."  ^    All  this  is  tantamount  to  saying  that 

1  How  different  the  case  of  the  Reformers  !  With  them  it 
was  no  mere  question  of  disputing  an  individual's  claim  to  the 
existing  authority  ;  it  was  rather  a  question  of  repudiating  the 
authority  itself. 

2  Op.  ciL,  p.  125. 

3  lb. 


THEOLOGICAL  279 

schism  is  not  excommunication.  For  Catholics  this 
requires  no  elaboration.  Schism  is  a  sin,  excom- 
munication a  punishment.  1 

Having  explained  what  does  not  constitute 
schism,  Dr.  Gore  proceeds  to  set  forth  what  does. 
"  Schism,"  he  states,  ..."  means  wilful  self- 
withdrawal  from  the  legitimate  succession  of  the 
Catholic  Church  ;  .  .  .  or  in  a  secondary  sense 
the  wilful  causing  of  a  breach  inside  the  Church."  ^ 
'  Primary  '  schism  is  separative  and  always  sinful ; 
'  secondary  '  schism  is  not  separative  and  is  allow- 
able in  exceptional  circumstances.  Hence  we 
must  distinguish  between  breaches  in  the  Church 
which  are  sometimes  lawful  and  separations  from 
the  Church  which  are  absolutely  inexcusable. 

The  Greek  and  the  Anglican  schisms,  he  goes  on 
to  explain,  are  justifiable  breaches  within  the 
Church.  Despite  them.  Catholicity  is  visibly  one. 
The  Greek,  the  Anglican,  and  the  Roman  com- 
munions, are  branches  of  one  and  the  same  tree — 
the  Church  Universal. 

Does  the  history  of  primitive  Christianity  afford 
any  basis  for  the  "  breach-within-the-Church " 
theory  ?  Yes,  he  answers,  the  Meletian  schism  at 
Antioch  in  the  fourth  century  was  recognized  at 
the  time,  even  by  E-ome,  as  a  breach  within  the 
Church.      Two    bishops,    Miletius   and    Paulinus, 

1  The  exact  nature  of  excommunication  will  be  explained 
presently. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  126. 

U 


280  THEOLOGICAL 

ruled  the  same  church  ;  each  excommunicated  the 
other  ;  Paulinus  was  recognized  by  Rome,  Meletius 
by  Asia  and  yet  East  and  West  remained  in  full 
communion  with  each  other.  In  Dr.  Gore's  eyes 
we  have  here  a  recognized  case  of  a  breach  within 
the  Church.  The  separation  of  England  from 
Rome  he  considers  to  be  similar  in  character.^ 

But  the  analogy  breaks  down  on  the  essential 
'point.  Despite  the  schism  at  Antioch  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  fourth  century  was  a  visible  organic 
unit  ruled  by  the  Roman  Pontiff  or,  if  this  be 
denied,  by  a  united  episcopate.  There  was  one 
flag  at  all  events — one  visible  central  authority  to 
which  Christians  everywhere  subjected  themselves. 
When  the  schism  occurred  at  Antioch  the  parties 
though  excommunicating  each  other  recognized  a 
common  flag.  The  Roman  and  the  Anglican 
communions  on  the  other  hand  do  not  acknowledge 
a  common  flag.  Hence  they  form  distinct  and 
separate  organizations.  One  flag  one  society ; 
n  flags  n  societies  and  therefore  n  churches. 

Excommunication  ^ 

Father  Lehmkuhl  defines  excommunication  as 
"  exclusion  from  the  benefits  of  Church  member- 
ship." ^    It  is  the  severest  punishment  inflicted  by 

^  op.  cit.,  p.  129  sqq. 

2  Lat.  excommunicatio :  ex,  out  of ;  communicaiio,  com- 
munion. 

^  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  632. 


THEOLOGICAL  281 

the  Church.  By  it  the  Christian,  lay  or  cleric,  is 
deprived  of  all  his  rights  and  privileges  as  a 
member  of  the  ecclesiastical  society.  Excom- 
munication is  outlawry  in  the  Church,.^ 

Hence  schism  and  excommunication  differ  toto 
coelo.  The  former  is  a  sinful  act  or  state  ;  the  latter 
a  punishment  of  its  nature  medicinal  and  salutary. 
Not  every  excommunicate  is  schismatical ;  outlaws 
are  not  necessarily  rebels. 

Dogmas 

The  word  dogma  (Gr.  Soy/ma  fr.  SoKeay)  literally 
signifies  not  only  an  opinion,  but  a  decree  (Lat. 
sententia,  placitum,  decretum).-  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment it  is  also  used  (in  the  plural)  of  the  precepts  of 
the  Mosaic   Law ;  ^   and   St.   Ignatius  speaks  of 

*  In  the  early  Church,  so  far  as  we  can  gather,  there  were  two 
kinds  of  excommunication,  one  local  the  other  inter -ecclesiasti- 
cal. The  former  deprived  individual  Christians,  totally  or  in 
part,  of  the  benefits  of  Church  membership,  and  corresponded 
closely  with  our  modern  censure.  The  latter  was  a  breach  of 
communion  between  churches  implying  little  more  than  a 
refusal  on  the  part  of  one  bishop  to  communicate  in  sacris  with 
another.  In  this  sense  bishops  frequently  excommunicated 
each  other  in  primitive  times  ;  and  excommunication  was  the 
regular  penalty  incurred  by  a  bishop  who  absented  himself 
without  sufficient  reason  from  a  provincial  council. 

2  Lk.  ii.  1  ;  Ac.  xvi.  4  ;  xvii.  7  ;  also  read  (loc.  Staray/za)  in 
Heb.  xi.  23  by  Lachmann  ;  cfr.  Col.  ii.  14,  20  ;  Esth.  iii.  9  ; 
Dan.  ii.  13  ;  vi.  8. 

3  Eph.  ii.  15. 


282  THEOLOGICAL 

TO,    Soyixara    tov    Kvpiou    /cat    t&v    aTrocTToXcov.^     Lastly, 

we  find  the  word  used  by  profane  authors  to  denote 
a  philosopher's  tenets,^  acceptance  of  which  is  a 
condition  of  membership  of  his  school.^ 

In  Catholic  usage  a  dogma  is  simply  a  defined 
truth  ;  a  truth,  that  is,  acceptance  of  which  is 
required  under  penalty  of  excommunication.  We 
find  dogmas  in  every  school  and  society  on  the  face 
of  the  earth.  No  one,  we  presume,  is  admitted  to 
membership  in  the  Eighty  Club  who  does  not 
accept  the  policy  of  Free  Trade.  It  is  a  Liberal 
dogma.  Protestants  who  denounce  Catholics  as 
dogmatists  make  themselves  ridiculous.  Is  there 
a  Protestant  Church  in  Christendom  without  its 
dogmas  ? 

Heresy  * 

Etymologically,  the  Greek  word  aipea-ig  con- 
notes a  taking  (fr.  alpeoo)  or  choosing  (fr.  alpeofxai),^ 
as  well  as  the  thing  chosen  ;  and  hence  an  opinion 
or  view.  In  the  New  Testament  it  has  three 
distinct  uses  :  It  is  employed  six  times  in  the  Acts, 
to    denote    a    separatist    organization    as    such, 

^  Ep.  ad  Magn.  xiii.  1. 

2  Lat.  decreta,  dogmata. 

^  Cic.  Acad.  iv.  9  ;  Just.  M.  Ap.  i.  26 ;  cfr.  Grimm  :  op  cit., 
p.  106  ;  Did  de  Thiol.  Cath.  F.  xxx.,  pp.  1574  sqq. 

*  "  Quid  ergo  faciat  haereticum,  regulari  quadam  defini- 
tione,  comprehendi,  sicut  ego  existimo,  aut  non  potest  aut 
difficilime  potest  "  (Aug,  Praef.  ad  lib.  de  haer.). 

5  cfr.  Lev.  xxii.  18  ;  1  Mace.  viii.  30  [LXX]. 


THEOLOGICAL  283 

Christian  or  otherwise.^  St.  Paul  uses  it  on  two 
occasions  in  reference  to  dissensions  arising  out  of 
diversity  of  opinion  ;  ^  and  St.  Peter  employs  it 
once  to  designate  a  doctrine  at  variance  with  the 
received  teaching.^ 

In  theology,  heresy  is  the  rejection  of  a  dogma.* 
Let  us  be  clear  about  this.  Every  society  has  its 
dogmas  or  definitions.  Members  who  reject  one  of 
these  become  guilty  of  heresy  of  a  kind.  A  member 
of  the  Eighty  Club,  for  example,  who  abandons 
the  principles  of  Free  Trade  for  those  of  Tariff 
Reform,  is  regarded  by  his  fellow-members  as  a 
heretic  in  politics.  So  in  the  Church  ;  rejection  of 
an  ecclesiastical  dogma,  and  that  alone  constitutes 
heresy.^ 

1  Ac.  V.  17  ;  XV.  5  ;  xxiv.  5,  14  ;  xxvi.  5  ;  xxviii.  22  {cfr. 
Joseph,  Bel.  Jud.  ii.  8.  1  ;  Just.  M.,  Dial,  xviii.  108). 

2  Gal.  V.  20  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  19. 

^  2  Pet.  ii.  1  ;  cjr.  Grimm,  lib.  cit.,  p.  11. 

*  "  Haeresis  est  infidelitatis  species  pertinens  ad  eos  qui 
fidem  Christi  profitentur  sed  eius  dogmata  corrumpunt " 
(St.  Thos.  :  Summa  2-2,  Q.  xi.  a.  1). 

^  Heresy  involves  disobedience  {cfr.  Tit.  i.  10  ;  Rom.  vi.  17  ; 
2  Cor.  X.  6-7).  St.  Thomas  goes  farther  and  holds  that  every 
heretic  is  also  a  schismatic  ;  {Summ.  2-2,  Q.  xxxix.  a.  1)  and 
in  this  he  is  followed  by  many  modern  theologians  including 
Murray  {De  EccL,  vol.  i.,  p.  377).  But  we  doubt  if  the  doctrine 
is  quite  scientific.  It  is  true  of  course  that  heretics,  as  a  rule, 
are  also  schismatics  ;  also  that  anyone  who  perseveres  in  heresy 
is  presumed  to  be  in  schism  ;  but  we  do  not  think  that  heresy, 
at  least  in  its  early  stages,  is  necessarily  separative.  A 
Christian  may  disobey  the  Holy  See  even  to  the  extent  of 
rejecting  a  dogma,  and  yet  not  set  up  a  new  flag. 


284  THEOLOGICAL 

Infallibility. — Christ,  it  has  been  shown,  estab- 
lished a  world-organization.  His  kingdom  is 
essentially  one  and  catholic  ;  and  Avill  endure  as 
such  to  the  end.    Schism  is  utterly  sinful. 

We  have  noted,  too,  how  the  Church,  from  her 
earliest  infancy,  was  conscious  of  the  irreforma- 
bility  of  her  own  definitive  utterances.  The 
deposit  was  one  and  unchanging ;  so  were  all 
doctrines  proposed  absolutely  by  the  Church  as 
portion  of  the  deposit.  Christian  dogmas  were  not 
subject  to  revision. 

The  supreme  ecclesiastical  inagisterium  was, 
therefore,  regarded  —  implicitly  at  least  —  as 
endowed  with  the  prerogative  of  infallibility.  It 
follows  at  once  from  the  foregoing.  For  consider 
the  condition  of  things  which  must  obtain  if  the 
Church  be  fallible  even  in  definitive  utterances. 
A  certain  dogma  of  hers,  let  us  suppose,  is  not  only 
questionable  but  actually  false  ;  and,  once  false, 
whatever  Modernists  may  say,  it  can  never  become 
true.  And  yet  it  is  irreformable.  The  Church 
must  continue  to  impose  it  to  the  crack  of  doom, 
under  penalty  of  excommunication.  What  course, 
then,  is  open  to  those  Christians  who  cannot  help 
regarding  it  an  error  ?  They  cannot  conform. 
To  subscribe  to  false  teaching,  by  whomsoever 
proposed,  is  intrinsically  wrong.  Neither  can  they 
set  up  a  new  flag.  Schism  is  never  lawful.  Those 
sincere  and  enlightened  Christians,  therefore — they 
and  their  successors, — are  obliged  to  live  their  lives 
as  outlaws  devoid  of  all  hope  of  restoration.     It  is  the 


THEOLOGICAL  285 

reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  doctrine  of  fallibility. 
Either  the  Church  is  infallible  in  irreformables  or 
schism  is  sometimes  lawful.     There  is  no  via  media. 

Anglican  Principles  of  Church  Unity 

"  We  maintain,"  writes  Dr.  Gore,  "  that 
primarily  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  a  unity  of 
inward  life.  "^  The  Church  Militant  and 
Triumphant  is  one,  he  holds,  because  the  sap  of 
Christ's  life  is  derived  into  her  from  one  and  the 
same  source.  But  there  is  also  an  external 
ministry,  subordinate  to  and  subserving  the  life  of 
the  Spirit ;  a  visible  apostolic  organization  through 
which  alone  God  has  covenanted  to  give  us  grace. 
"  Each  local  church  exists  ...  to  keep  the 
streams  of  the  water  of  life  flowing.  .  .  .  Each 
has  a  necessary  connection  with  all  the  others  in 
the  witness  of  truth  and  in  the  fellowship  of  love 
.  .  .  but  their  primary  point  of  union  is  nothing 
lower  than  Christ."  ^ 

In  Dr.  Gore's  eyes  the  Church  is  an  external 
oiganic  unit  de  iure,^  but  not  de  facto.  "  Divisions 
in  the  Church,"  he  writes,  "  prevent  her  from 
bearing  the  witness  she  ought  to  bear  to  the  one 


1  op  cit.,  p.  30. 

2  ib.,  pp.  33-34. 

3  "It  is  incumbent  on  us  to  avoid  schism  in  the  body." 
The  unity  of  the  Spirit  "  ought  to  result  in  "  outward  fellow- 
ship (p.  28). 


286  THEOLOGICAL 

life  by  which  she  lives ;  but,"  he  adds,"  she  no  more 
ceases  to  be  one  by  outward  divisions  than  she 
ceases  to  be  holy  by  tolerating  {sic)  sin."  ^  Schisms, 
we  are  told,  do  not  affect  the  primary  unity, 
"  which  consists  in  the  derivation  of  the  life  of  the 
Spirit  from  Christ  down  the  channels  of  His 
organized  society."  ^  Dr.  Gore  charges  us  with 
holding  the  "  thoroughly  unscriptural "  position 
that  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  primarily  a  unity  of 
visible  association.' 

But  the  learned  prelate's  grasp  of  Catholic 
principles  is  strangely  inadequate.  As  I  understand 
our  system,  we  hold  for  a  body  of  Christ  which  is  a 
visible  society  animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Under  the  latter  aspect  its  organizing  principle  is 
grace — the  life  of  the  Spirit — derived  from  an 
unseen  Head  and  quickening  the  members ;  as 
visible  it  is  an  external  society  which  like  all 
societies  has  as  its  primary  unifying  principle  a 
visible  government.^ 

As  a  society  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  the  early  Fathers  is  the  body  of  Christ  and 
therefore  essentially  one  ;  but  we  are  positively  at 


1  ih.,  p.  29. 

-  op.  cit.y  p.  36. 

3  ib.,  p.  35. 

*  Dom  Chapman,  replying  to  Dr.  Gore,  denies  that  Catholic 
theologians  make  hierarchical  unity  the  primary  unity. 
"  Theologians,"  he  writes,  demand  for  the  Church  a  three-fold 
visible  unity  "  :  the  first,  -primary  and  fundamental,  unity  of 
faith  (the  symbohcal  bond),  the  second  unity  of  intercom- 


THEOLOGICAL  287 

a  loss  to  understand  how  Dr.  Gore  can  seriously 
hold  that  a  church  which  separates  itself  and  that 
from  which  it  separates  can  together  form  a  single 
society.  Can  we  say  that  the  separated  colonies 
and  the  British  Empire  together  form  one  State  ? 
Is  it  not  recognized  that  oneness  of  flag  is  essential 
to  social  unity  ? 

Church  Membership 

That  portion  of  the  treatise  "  De  Ecclesia " 
which  professes  to  determine  the  extension  of  the 
Church,  has  still  to  be  treated  scientifically.  The 
question  as  to  who  are  and  who  are  not  members 
of  the  body  of  Christ  looks  simple  ;  but  one  searches 
the  handbooks  in  vain  for  a  clear  or  satisfactory 
reply. 

Father  Tan  query,  for  example,  discusses  the 
entire  question  of  Church  membership  in  the 
language  of  perplexity  and  indecision.  His 
attitude  throughout  is  ingeniously  non-committal. 
The  body  of  the  Church  he  boldly  defines  as  "  the 
aggregate  of  those  who  are  externally  united  into  a 

munion  (the  liturgical  bond),  the  third  and  last  unity  of 
government  (the  hierarchical  bond). 

No  doubt  it  works  out  that  way  ;  but  is  it  not  at  once 
clearer  and  simpler  to  hold  for  one  ultimate  unifying  principle 
and  one  only — that  of  Government.  The  other  two  bonds 
appear  to  owe  their  efficiency  as  principles  of  external  unity 
entirely  to  the  authority  which  imposes  them.  In  any  visible 
society,  ecclesiastical  or  otherwise,  there  seems  to  be  one 
primary  principle  of  unity  and  only  one — the  fag. 


288  THEOLOGICAL 

single  Christian  association,  in  subjection  to  the 
bishops  and  to  the  Roman  Pontiff."  ^  This 
definition  one  would  think  is  sufficiently  clear  to 
do  away  with  all  obscurity  ;  and  yet  in  a  later 
section  ^  he  tells  us  that  all  baptized  persons 
belong  to  the  body  of  the  Church  in  some  way 
(aliquo  modo)  ;  catechumens  incipiently  (inchoa- 
tive) ;  adult  public  heretics  and  occult  and 
notorious  schismatics  imperfectly  (imperfeote)  ; 
tolerated  excommunicates  truly  (vere),  and  vitandi 
not  completely  (non-complete)  !  We  find  this 
difficult  to  understand. 

In  the  hope  of  imparting  to  the  reader  a  few 
clear  ideas  on  an  admittedly  obscure  subject  we 
shall  discuss  the  question  under  three  distinct 
headings  as  follows  : — 

(a)  The    Vine    {i.e.,    the    mystical    body   as 

energized  by  grace). 

(b)  The  "  soul "  of  the  Church. 

(c)  The  social  body  {i.e.,  the  mystical  body  as 

an  external  society  ruled  by  a  visible 
hierarchy  under  the  Pope).^ 

1  Corpus  est  .  .  .  coUectio  eorum  qui  exterius  in  unam 
societatem  Christianam  coadunantur  sub  regimine  episco- 
porum  Romanique  Pontificis  {up.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  533). 

2  pp.  583-590. 

3  The  reader  will  be  careful  to  note  that  what  we  have 
named  the  Vine  and  the  social  body  respectively  are  one  and 
the  same  thing  viewed  under  different  aspects.  The  basis  of 
the  distinction  is  found  in  the  Summa,  p.  iii,  q.  viii,  art.  6 
(resp.) . 


THEOLOGICAL  289 


The  Vine 


Baptism  unites  us  interiorly  to  Christ.  It  is  a 
laver  of  regeneration,— ^a  new  birth  by  which  we 
become  introduced  into  the  life  of  the  Spirit.  It 
makes  us  live  with  Christ's  own  life  ;  it  connects 
us  with  Him  as  with  the  Fountain  of  Grace.  For 
St.  Paul  baptism  incorporates  us  really  if  mystically 
into  the  crucified  Redeemer.  In  Him  and  through 
Him  as  Head  we  form  an  organism  energized  by 
His  life.  This  mystical  organism  is  the  Vine  of 
John  XV. 

Coming  to  discuss  the  question  as  to  who  are 
branches,  the  case  of  departed  souls  creates  no 
difficulty.  It  is  not  disputed  that  the  reprobate  are 
cut  ofi  for  ever  from  the  Mystical  body  as  it  is  not 
disputed  that  souls  which  depart  this  life  in  the 
state  of  grace  are  confirmed  in  membership.  "  The 
Anglican  conception  of  Church  unity,"  writes  Dr. 
Gore,  "  does  not  confine  it  to  this  world  but 
includes  within  it  the  departed  who  are  like  us  in 
Christ."  1  This  is  the  Catholic  conception  as  well 
provided  there  be  question  of  the  Vine  and  not  of 
the  social  body. 

As  regards  this  life,  it  is  held  by  many  Catholic 
theologians  and  exegetes  that  membership  in  the 
Vine  is  forfeited  by  heresy.  This  view,  though 
strongly  supported,  strikes  us  as  being  somewhat 

1  op.  ciL,  p.  32. 


290  THEOLOGICAL 

extreme.  As  we  understand  Catholic  principles,  a 
baptized  person  ceases  to  be  a  branch  of  the 
Vine  only  by  death  in  mortal  sin. 

This  seems  to  be  implied  in  our  theology  of  the 
sacraments.  So  long  as  Ufe  lasts  any  one  who  is 
baptized,  even  though  a  formal  heretic  or  in 
schism,  is  habitually  capable  of  receiving  at  least 
some  sacraments,  not  only  validly  but  fruitfully. 
This  shows,  we  imagine,  that  he  is  not  yet  quite 
separate.  If  he  were,  the  sacramental  ducts  which 
have  been  set  up  by  baptism  and  which  connect 
his  soul  with  the  Fountain  of  grace,  would  be 
severed,  and  he  would  require  to  be  rebaptized  to 
draw  upon  the  source  again,  through  the  sacra- 
ments. 

We  recognize,  of  course,  that  heretics  and  others 
who  incur  excommunication,  are  placed  in  a  state 
of  grave  spiritual  necessity.  But  the  censure  does 
not  lop  them  off  from  the  Vine-stock.  It  leaves 
the  channels  of  grace  intact,  and  merely  holds  up 
the  stream  of  life.  And  so  excommunicates,  by 
mere  removal  of  the  censure,  become  at  once 
capable  of  receiving  the  sacraments  validly  and 
fruitfully.  A  second  baptism  is  not  required  to 
re-establish  sacramental  connection  with  the  Head. 
Baptism  has  made  us  branches  of  the  Vine  and 
branches  we  remain  until  death,  sins  and  censures 
notwithstanding. 

Each  branch  is  quickened  to  some  extent.  In 
the  souls  of  the  just  the  stream  of  life  is  full  and 
continuous ;  in  the  case  of  sinners  it  is  weak  and 


THEOLOGICAL  291 

intermittent — more  especially  if  the  sinner  be  a 
formal  heretic.  But  so  long  as  soul  and  body 
remain  united,  every  baptized  person  is  animated 
to  some  extent  by  the  life  of  the  Spirit.  A  Christian 
is  never  quite  dead — until  he  dies. 

We  have  tried  in  vain  to  make  out  Dr.  Gore's 
views  on  the  question  of  membership  in  the  Vine. 
He  quotes  Dr.  Pusey  to  the  effect  that  Christians 
who  reject  the  faith,  the  sacraments,  or  the 
apostolic  succession  of  the  bishops,  "  sever  them- 
selves not  only  from  the  body  of  Christ,  but 
directly  from  the  Head  loosing  the  band  which 
binds  them  unto  Him "  ^  This  is  a  sweeping 
assertion  ;  but  Dr  Gore  is  not  quite  prepared  to 
stand  by  it  personally:  "  Every  one,"  he  writes, 
"  who  has  a  certain  inward  gift  is  in  the  Church 
unity  ;  but  none  can,  I  do  not  say  possess  but  make 
good  their  claim  to  possess  that  gift  in  its  fulness  ^ 
save  those  who  dwell  within  the  unity  of  the 
apostolic  organization  which  is  the  visible  Church. 
It  is  only  through  this  visible  organization  that 
God  has  covenanted  to  give  us  the  invisible  Life  "  ^ 

What  are  we  to  understand  by  '  subordinate  ' 
membership  in  the  Church  ?  And  if  God  has 
covenanted  to  give  us  invisible  Life  only  through 
the  apostolic  organization,  how  is  Dr  Gore  in  a 
position  to  assure  Dissenters  that  they  have  got 
the  inward  gift  even  in  small  measure  ? 

1  ojp.  cit.,  p.  31. 

^  "  All  baptized  persons,"  he  adds,  "  are  in  a  subordinate 
sense  inside  the  Church,"  ^  ^-^^ 


292  THEOLOGICAL 


The  Soul  of  the  Church^ 

By  the  soul  of  the  Church  I  should  like  to  under- 
stand the  manifold  grace  of  God  which  permeates 
and  quickens  the  Body  of  Christ  in  all  its  members. 
As  actually  employed  by  theologians,  however,  the 
expression  is  simply  synonymous  with  "  sancti- 
fying "  grace.  ^ 

This  peculiar  distinction  between  the  body  and 
the  soul  of  the  Church  is  another  outcome  of 
doctrinal  development.  That  portion  of  our 
theology  which  treats  of  the  economy  of  grace  has 
undergone  an  extraordinary  transformation  since 
the  Patristic  period.  We  already  know  that  the 
early  fathers  almost  without  exception  depict  the 
Church  as  a  sealed  fountain  {fons  signatus),  whence 
alone  men  can  draw  the  vivifying  waters  ;  an  ark 
of  Noe  outside  which  no  one  can  be  saved.  The 
axiom  extra  ecclesiam  nulla  solus  they  interpreted 
rigorously,  looking  on  non-Christians  of  every 
description,  as  well  as  heretics  and  schismatics,  as 
spiritually  lost. 

With  the  lapse  of  centuries  theologians  came  to 
realize  that  the  traditional  view  in  this  matter  was 
somewhat  extreme.    They  recognized  the  fact  that 

1  i.e.,  with  the  supernatural  habits  of  which  charity  is  the 
culmination  and  "  form."  The  appropriation  of  the  epithet 
"  sanctifying  "  to  habitual  grace  must  be  puzzling  to  the 
uninitiated.     Is  not  all  grace — gratum  faciens — sanctifjnng  ? 


THEOLOGICAL  293 

many  remained  outside  the  Church  in  good  faith, 
and  that  of  these  some  really  lived  well  according 
to  their  lights.  Accordingly  the  axiom  extra 
ecclesiam  nulla  salus  came  to  be  so  interpreted 
as  to  allow  for  the  possibility  of  salvation  in 
certam  cases  outside  the  Body.^  The  distinction 
between  the  body  and  the  soul  of  the  Church 
was  found  convenient  as  enabling  theologians  to 
retain  a  time-honoured  axiom  while  holding  more 
liberal  views  on  the  economy  of  grace.  Heretics 
and  unbaptized  persons  who  are  saved,  they  held, 
are,  in  a  sense,  inside  the  Church,  since  they  belong 
to  her  soul. 

It  is  somewhat  confusing.  The  theology  of  the 
early  fathers  is  intelligible  and  their  terminology 
quite  suitable.  For  them  Christianity  was  a  body 
animated  by  the  life  of  the  spirit  as  by  a  soul. 
The  analogy  was  perfect.  The  soul  animated  the 
body  in  aU  its  members,^  and  only  the  body. 
Modem  theologians,  on  the  contrary,  speaking  of 
the  Church,  set  up  a  relation  between  body  and 
soul  which  is  without  parallel  in  our  experience 
of  things.  They  speak  of  a  soul  which  informs 
some  members  of  the  body,  but  not  others  ;  while — 
strangest  of  all— it  energizes  "members"  which 

^  Unbaptized  persons  who  acquire  justification  belong  to 
the  body,  not  actually,  but  only  in  voto. 

^  Even  members  who  had  lost  the  habit  of  charity  were 
still  animated  to  some  extent  by  the  life  of  the  Spirit  {cfr. 
Adv.  Haer.  iii.  24.  1). 


294  THEOLOGICAL 

do  not  belong  to  the  body.  Be  it  remembered  that 
there  is  no  question  of  doctrine  here.  Our  com- 
plaint is  entirely  about  words :  that  to  interpret 
the  patristic  formula :  "  outside  the  Church  no 
salvation  "  so  as  to  include  in  "  the  Church  "  some 
who  are  not  baptized,  is  to  "  read  into  "  the  axiom 
a  meaning  which  it  cannot  bear.  Theologians 
occasionally  put  new  wine  into  old  bottles. 

As  the  use  of  the  expression  "  the  soul  of  the 
Church  "  as  a  synonym  for  habitual  grace  has 
become  so  general,  we  accept  it — ^under  protest ; 
and  merely  warn  the  lay  reader  to  be  on  his  guard 
against  misunderstanding  it.  The  "  Soul  of  the 
Church  "  of  Catholic  theology  is  not  any  invisible 
assemblage  of  just  men  unbaptized  as  well  as 
baptized.  It  is  simply  grace  ;  and  hence  it  would 
be  less  misleading  if  we  spoke  of  'participation 
rather  than  of  membership  in  the  soul  of  the  Church. 
The  Soul  of  the  Church  is  a  thing  and  not  a 
collection  of  persons.  ^ 

The  Social  Body 

Having  discussed  the  Vine,  with  its  mystic 
energizing  principle,  we  come  to  examine  something 

^  Father  Tanquery  writes  as  follows  of  the  distmction 
between  the  body  and  the  soul  of  the  Church  : — "  The  body  is 
the  visible  element,  the  aggregate  of  those  who  are  externally 
united  ...  in  subjection  ...  to  the  Roman  Pontiff. 
The  soul,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  invisible  element  or  the 
collection  of  those  who  are  ...  in  the  state  of  grace." 
This  language  is  calculated  to  mislead. 


THEOLOGICAL  295 

more  tangible — viz.,  the  external  society  which  we 
call  the  Church.  Who  are  its  members  ?  How  is 
membership  forfeited  ?  Are  Christians  unchurched 
by  evil-doing,  by  excommunication,  by  heresy,  by 
schism  ?  These  are  straight  questions  demanding 
a  straight  answer. 

Sin. — Mere  sin  is  not  separative.  This  was 
recognized  from  the  very  outset.  Baptized  persons, 
however  wicked,  remained  within  the  fold,  and 
continued  to  enjoy  the  fellowship  of  the  "  saints." 
Cockle  and  wheat  were  suffered  to  grow  together 
until  the  harvest.  It  was  only  at  death  that 
sinners  became  unchurched. 

Excommunication. — Mere  excommunicates  are 
also  within  the  Church.  This,  too,  was  understood 
from  the  beginning.  Although  the  lapsed,  and 
public  sinners  generally,  were  deprived  of  the 
sacraments  and  of  other  benefits  of  Church- 
membership,  they  remained  fully  subject  to  the 
hierarchy.^    A  course  of  penitential  exercises  was 

^  The  excommunicated  Corinthian  although  "  deliverered 
over  to  Satan  "  was  understood  to  remain  subject  to  St.  Paul 
and  to  the  local  hierarchy  (cfr.  Prat.  :  op.  cit.,  vol.  i.  141-142). 

The  form  of  words  employed  in  absolving  from  excom- 
munication is  set  down  in  the  Roman  ritual  as  follows  : — 

Auctoritate  Apostolica,  qua  fungor  in  hac  parte,  absolvo  te  a 
vinculo  excommunicationis  quam  incurristi,  et  restituo  te  sacro- 
sanctis  ecclesiae  Sacramentis,  communioni  et  unitati  fidelium. 
In  nomine  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti. 

Excommunicates  are,  therefore,  not  quite  unchurched. 
They  remain  within  the  pale,  but  in  bonds. 

X 


296  THEOLOGICAL 

prescribed  for  the  outlawed  brethren ;  and  those 
who  did  what  was  required  of  them  were  authori- 
tatively restored  to  communion,  if  the  existing 
discipline  permitted.  Subjection  to  the  established 
authority  in  any  society  we  already  know  to  be  a 
formal  test  of  membership. 

Here  again  Father  Tanquery's  position  is  not 
consistent.  Christians,  he  asserts,  are  not  members 
of  the  Church  so  long  as  they  are  excommunicate  ;^ 
and  yet  a  little  farther  on^  we  find  it  stated  that 
tolerati  are  not  wholly  {non  totaliter)  unchurched. 
He  even  adopts  the  common  opinion  that  tolerati 
are  really  members  of  tlie  Church. 

Father  Wemz  defines  excommunication  as  a 
censure  whereby  one  is  separated  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  faithful.^  This  definition  is  correct ; 
but  we  find  in  a  later  section^  a  misleading  com- 
parison between  excommunication  and  schism. 
Both,  he  tells  us,  are  separative,  and  differ  only  in 
this  that  one  is  compulsory,  the  other  voluntary.^ 
Bargilliat,  too,  asserts  that  excommunicates  are 
lopped  off  from  the  Church  as  decayed  members. <* 

^  vol.  cit.,  p.  586. 

2  ih.,  p.  589. 

^  Jus  Decretalium  :  xvi.  180. 

*  ib.  354. 

5  "  Si  quis  ob  grave  delictum  invitus  .  .  .  separatur 
erit  excommunicatus  sed  non  schismaticus  ;  is  enim  sponte 
non  recedit  "  {ib.). 

^  "  Tamquam  putridum  membrum  ab  ecclesia  abscinditur  " 
{Tract,  xi,  c.  3,  a.  1). 


THEOLOGICAL  297 

Suarez  is  much  more  satisfactory.  Excom- 
municates, he  writes,  are  deprived  merely  of 
communion  and  not  of  membership  ;  just  as  a  hand 
or  foot  may  be  deprived  of  nourishment  and  of 
'  influx  '  from  the  rest  of  the  body,  and  yet  remain 
a  member.^  This  he  declares  to  be  the  traditional 
view:  "The  Fathers  never  teach  that  excom- 
municates are  outside  the  Church,  but  merely  cut 
off  from  communion."  ^  And  he  quotes  St. 
Augustine  ^  to  the  effect  that  "  those  who  are 
punished  by  degradation  or  excommunication  are 
not  separated  from  the  people  of  God."  Finally 
he  implies  that  excommunication  is  nothing  more 
than  outlawry  within  the  Church  :  "  Potest  autem 
fieri  ut  civis  permaneat  quispiam  alicuius  reipub- 
licae  et  tamen  arceatur  a  consortio  et  familiaritate 
concivium."  ^ 

Heresy. — ^As  to  heretics,  we  seem  placed  in  a 
dilemma:  hold  what  we  will,  we  have  tradition 
against  us.  The  Fathers  can  be  quoted  ad  nauseam 
in  support  of  the  view  that  heretics  are  without  the 
pale.  On  the  other  hand  tradition  has  it  that  all 
baptized  persons  remain  bound  by  the  laws  of  the 
Church  till  death.  There  is  a  contradiction  here. 
If  heretics  are  under  the  flag,  they  are  within  the 
pale  ;  if  they  are  one  hair's  breadth  outside  the  pale, 

^  De  Fide  :  D.  ix.  sect.  1,  n.  14. 

2  ib.  n.  16. 

^  Contra  Don,  c.  xx. 

*  loc.  cit.  n  5. 


298  THEOLOGICAL 

the  arm  of  ecclesiastical  authority  cannot  reach 
them. 

Of  two  contradictory  traditions  we  follow  what 
is  the  more  fundamental ;  and  in  this  case  it  would 
seem  as  if  the  more  liberal  tradition  must  hold  the 
field.  To  begin  with,  we  have  noted  how  St.  Paul 
and  the  early  Fathers  recognized  that  a  formal 
heretic  does  not  at  once  forfeit  membership  in  the 
Church,  nor  even  the  privileges  of  membership. 
Heretics  were  retained  in  communion  until  they 
had  ignored  two  warnings.  Further,  we  feel  certain 
that  statements  of  early  writers, ^  to  the  effect  that 
heretics  are  outside  the  Church,  should  not  and 
cannot  be  interpreted  as  implying  that  heresy 
really  exempts  the  Christian  from  obedience  to 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Heretics  were  said  to  be 
unchurched  simply  because,  as  excommunicates ^ 
they  were  outlawed ;  and  because,  as  formal 
heretics,  they  participated  in  the  life  of  the  Spirit 
to  a  less  extent  than  did  ordinary  excommunicates. 
Tradition,  it  would  seem,  implicitly  recognizes  that 
heretics  remain  members  of  the  visible  Church  so 
long  as  life  lasts. 

Suarez  holds  the  opposite  view  ;  but  his  defence 
is  weak.  "  All  who  have  the  faith,"  he  writes, 
"  are  members  of  the  Church  ;  all  who  have  not  the 
faith  are  outside."  -     Hence  pure  schismatics  are 

1  And  the  same  is  true  of  official  pronouncements  of  the 
Church  in  reference  to  heretics. 

2  Tract,  i,  D.  1,  sect.  1. 


THEOLOGICAL  299 

members,  and  so  are  catechumens.  To  the 
objection  that,  by  regarding  the  latter  as  members 
of  the  Church,  he  implicitly  looks  upon  them  as 
subject  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  he  replies  that 
"  catechumens  are  not  subject  to  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  because  they  have  not  the  baptismal 
character.  Baptism  is  the  door  by  which  we  enter 
the  visible  Church."  Here  the  great  theologian,  as 
it  were,  unconsciously  hits  upon  the  true  principle 
of  Church  membership.  Baptism  alone  it  is 
which  incorporates  us  into  the  social  Body  ;^  and 
all  validly  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore  subject  to  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction.  2  Suarez  admits  that  heretics  are 
subject  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  ;  but  this  is 
true,  he  holds,  "  not  because  they  are  members 
of  the  Church,  but  simply  because  they  have 
inflicted  an  injury  upon  her  "  ! 

Schismatics. — -We  come,  in  fine,  to  the  case  of 
schismatics  ;  and  ask  if  even  they  can  be  said  to 
belong  to  the  visible  Church.  At  this  stage  we  are 
concerned  entirely  with  schismatics  as  such.  In 
so  far  as  these  may  be  also  heretics  or  excom- 
municates their  standing  has  been  already  deter- 
mined. 


1  No  one  is  born  a  member  of  the  Church. 

^  "  Haeretici,  schismatic!,  denique  omnes  baptizati  per  se 
legibus  ecclesiasticis  subjacent "  (Lehm.,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i, 
p.  140). 


300  THEOLOGICAL 

The  Congress  of  Velehrad 

In  July  1907  a  large  and  representative  congress 
of  theologians,  secular  and  regular,  was  convened 
at  Velehrad  in  Moravia  with  a  view  to  bringing 
about  a  better  understanding  between  East  and 
West.  There  were  present  in  all  seventy-six 
members,  including  the  Prince  Archbishop  of 
Olmiitz,  the  Vicar  Apostolic  of  Bulgaria,  the 
Archbishop  of  Leopolis,  and  the  Bishop  of 
Kamenetz.  Andrew,  Archbishop  of  Galicia,  pre- 
sided. 

The  proceedings  opened  with  a  paper  by  Rev. 
John  Urban  of  Cracow,  entitled :  "  De  eis  quae  a 
theologis  Occidentalibus  pro  Orientalibus  effici 
possint  et  debeant."  The  paper,  which  was  warmly 
applauded,  has  been  published  in  the  official  Acts 
of  the  Congress.^ 

M.  Urban  gives  it  as  his  considered  judgment 
that  some  modification  of  current  western  phrase- 
ology in  reference  to  church  membership  is  impera- 
tive. Most  handbooks  of  ecclesiology,  he  says, 
refuse  to  allow  that  heretics  and  schismatics  belong 
to  the  visible  Church.  It  is  recognized,  of  course, 
that  separatists  who  are  in  good  faith  and  in  the 
state  of  grace  belong  to  the  soul  of  the  Church ; 

^  Acta  Primi  Conventus  Velehradensis.  Pragae  Bohemorum 
1908.  Typis  Aep.  Officinae  Typographicae  in  commissione 
Bibliopolae  Rohlieek  &  Sievers.     Pragae  190-1. 


THEOLOGICAL  301 

but  then  may  not  the  same  be  said  of  non- 
Christians  ?  This  implicit  lowering  of  schismatics 
to  the  level  of  the  unbaptized  heathen,  he  declares, 
is  not  only  harsh,  but  unwarrantable  ;  and  western 
theologians  are  called  upon  to  draw  up  a  more 
conciliatory  formula  to  define  the  extension  of  the 
Church.  A  formula  of  this  kind,  he  holds,  is  not 
only  permissible  but  really  demanded  by  a  close 
analysis  of  theological  principles. 

Theologians  of  the  post-Reformation  period,  he 
proceeds,  are  not  sufficiently  careful  to  distinguish 
between  the  Church  as  a  visible  society  and  the 
same  as  the  mystical  Body.  As  to  the  Church 
social,  Suarez,  he  notes,  puts  forward  internal 
faith  as  its  ultimate  constitutive  principle,^  finding 
room  within  her  pale  for  pure  schismatics  and  even 
for  catechumens  ;  while  Bellarmine  and  theologians 
generally  put  forward  subjection  to  the  Roman 
See  as  the  real  test  of  membership,  and  unchurch, 
not  alone  those  who  belong  to  heretical  sects,  but 
even  pure  schismatics. 

Cardinal  Franzelin  tries  to  hold  a  middle  course 
between  the  position  of  Suarez  and  that  of  Bellar- 
mine. All  who  are  validly  baptized,  he  states,  are 
incorporated  uito  the  visible  body,  and  forfeit 
membership  only  by  a  formal  mortal  sin  of  heresy 
or  of  schism.    Hence  public  heretics  or  schismatics. 


1    .    .    .    forma  qua  corpus  ecclesiae  in  suo  esse  constituitur. 
{Acta,  p.  22.) 


302  THEOLOGICAL 

though  unchurched  in  foro  externo,  continue  to  be 
members  of  the  visible  Body  in  the  eyes  of  God, 
so  long  as  their  adherence  to  a  separatist  organiza- 
tion is  not  subjectively  and  gravely  culpable. 
This  view  the  lecturer  rejects  as  implying  that  a 
purely  internal  sin  of  heresy  is  capable  of  cutting 
one  off  from  the  visible  Body. 

Proceeding  to  set  forth  his  own  opinion,  M. 
Urban,  following  the  Jesuit  theologians  Lingens  and 
Piatkiewicz,  lays  it  down  that  the  baptismal 
character  is  the  first  and  fundamental  principle  in 
virtue  of  which  the  Church  has  and  retains  her 
essential  constitution.  It  follows,  therefore, — the 
character  being  indelible — that  no  validly  baptized 
person  can,  while  life  lasts,  be  placed  outside  her 
pale.  Acts  and  even  habits  which  are  contrary 
to  the  virtue  of  faith  or  other  virtues,  paralyse 
rather  than  amputate  the  members  of  the  mystical 
Body. 

Besides  the  primary  bond, — the  sacramental 
character, — there  are,  he  continues,  other  ties  by 
whicn  the  Body  of  Christ  is  more  completely  unified. 
Of  these  the  chief  is  the  social  bond  of  juridical 
subjection  to  the  hierarchy  and  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff.  It  is  the  clearly  expressed  wish  of  Christ 
that  all  who,  by  baptism,  become  members  of  His 
mystical  Body,  should  form  together  a  single 
external  society  in  subjection  to  the  successor  of 
St.  Peter.  The  Church,  as  an  undivided  society, 
should  be  coextensive  with  the  mystical  union  of 
Christians  based  upon  the  sacramental  character. 


THEOLOGICAL  303 

But  although  it  is  true  that  he  who  refuses  to 
commune  with  the  centre  of  visible  unity  is  entirely 
outside  the  Church,  regarded  as  a  social  unit,  he  is 
yet  a  member  of  the  mystical  Body  in  virtue  of 
the  original  and  enduring  bond  of  baptism.  Hence 
it  is  untrue  to  state  absolutely  that  any  baptized 
person  has  ceased  or  can  cease,  during  life,  to  be  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

This  distinction  between  the  Church  as  social 
Body  and  the  same  as  mystical  Body,  he  concludes, 
enables  us  to  hold  that  the  Orientals,  though  under 
the  social  aspect  separated  from  us,  are  nevertheless 
incorporated  in  the  mystical  Body  ;  and  that  under 
this  aspect  they  are  members  of  the  Church  and 
our  brothers  in  Christ.  Moreover,  he  adds.  Easterns 
differ  from  Protestants  in  this  that  in  virtue  of  the 
episcopal  and  sacerdotal  character  they  have 
retained  their  apostolicity  and  enter  into  the 
mystical  Body  not  as  separated  cells  but  as  organized 
members.  When  there  is  question  of  Orientals, 
therefore,  we  can  speak  of  a  union  of  churches,  and 
not  merely  of  a  restoration  of  erring  individuals.^ 

1  He  quotes  the  celebrated  Russian  philosopher,  Solov'ev, 
"  who  had  a  most  clear  insight  into  the  essence  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,"  to  the  effect  that  any  attempt  at  union  of  East  and 
West  will  be  vain  until  we  recognize  the  essential,  the  mystico- 
sacramental  solidarity  of  the  churches  as  inseparable  parts  of 
the  Body  of  Christ.  Recognizing  this,  he  says,  we  should 
strive  to  make  this  essential  unity  external  and  visible  by  a 
social  union  of  those  great  communities  which  historical 
happenings  have  divided,  but  which  continue  to  be  one  in 
Christ  {Acta,  p.  25). 


304  THEOLOGICAL 


Criticism 


Schismatical  Churches. — In  regarding  all  baptized 
persons  as  members  of  the  body  of  Christ  M. 
Urban  simply  follows  St.  Paul:  "For  in  one 
Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one  body  whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  bond  or  free."  ^  But 
he  holds  further  that  the  Oriental  Church,  though 
separated,  has  retained  its  apostolicity  since  its 
Orders  are  valid.  This  cannot  be  conceded.  The 
Eastern  hierarchy  is  not  apostolic.  In  breaking 
with  Rome  they  have  broken  with  the  Twelve,  and 
the  validity  of  their  Orders  is  no  guarantee  of  the 
apostolicity  of  their  organization.  M.  Urban  con- 
founds authority  (jurisdiction)  with  the  power  of 
Orders. 

His  view  that  the  Oriental  Church,  unlike  the 
Anglican,  has  retained  its  organization  and  hence 
can  be  restored  as  a  church  is  interesting. 
Personally  we  do  not  admit  it.  We  hold,  on  the 
contrary,  that  any  church  which  becomes  schisma- 
tical eo  ipso  becomes  really  separate  as  an  organiza- 
tion and  ceases  to  exist  as  such,  the  individuals 
composing  it  remaining  (outlawed)  members  of  the 
one  true  Church.  But  M.  Urban's  view  is  not,  we 
think,  quite  impossible  of  acceptance  by  Catholics. 
Antecedently  to  the  schism  the  Oriental  limb  of  the 
mystical  Body  was  endowed  with  an  organization 

1  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 


THEOLOGICAL  305 

which  enabled  it  to  act  in  a  corporate  capacity  as  a 
channel  of  grace.  Now  it  may  be  that  by  schism 
the  limb  in  question  became,  not  amputated,  but 
just  paralyzed ;  it  may  be,  also,  that  it  has  not 
become  a  mere  mass  of  discrete  cells,  but  has 
retained  its  organization,  so  that  it  would  not 
require  to  be  organized  anew  in  the  event  of 
restoration.  This,  we  believe,  may  be  argued  ; 
but,  though  we  were  to  grant  that  the  Eastern 
Church  is  to-day  really  a  church,  we  should  not 
grant  that,  as  such,  it  is  capable  of  corporate  activity. 
If  it  be  a  limb  of  Christ's  Body  it  is  a  paralyzed 
limb.* 

Individual  Schismatics. — We  have  yet  to  inquire 
if  individual  schismatics  are  outside  the  Church, 
considered  merely  as  an  external  society  ruled  by 
the  Catholic  episcopacy  in  subjection  to  the  Vicar 
of  Christ.  Here  M.  Urban  is  quite  explicit :  "If 
the  social  nature  of  the  Church  is  alone  con- 
sidered," he  says,  "  we  readily  grant  that  the 
opinion  of  BeUarmine  (who  unchurches  schis- 
matics) is  absolutely  true.     .     .     .     He  who  does 

*  We  have  found  no  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  the 
Roman  Church  has  ever  officially  recognized  that  the  Eastern 
Church  as  a  church  is  possessed  of  any  jurisdiction  whatever 
ordinary  or  delegated  for  either  forum.  Eastern  priests,  it  is 
true,  validly  absolve  penitents  who  are  in  danger  of  death  and 
bless  the  Holy  Oils  ;  but  the  jurisdiction  necessary  in  such  cases 
may  be  derived  by  the  individual  minister  immediately  from 
the  Holy  See,  and  not  from  his  own  Church — if  it  be  a 
church. 


306  THEOLOGICAL 

not  subject  himself  to  the  centre  of  unity  may  be 
said  to  be  entirely  outside  the  Church."  ^ 

But  we  doubt  if  the  contention  can  be  sustained* 
M.  Urban  himself  will  admit  that  schismatics  are 
bound  by  the  laws  of  the  Church.  How  then  can 
it  be  "  absolutely  true  "  that  they  are  quite  outside 
her  pale.  No  one  is  bound  to  obey  the  voice  of 
authority  save  a  subject. 

Conclusion. — Secession  from  a  temporal  kingdom 
is  sometimes  lawful  and  sometimes  successful. 
When  successful,  those  who  have  broken  away  cease 
to  be  subject  to  the  mother-state  ;  and  this,  even 
though  it  should  happen  that  the  secession  was 
originally  unjustifiable.  A  citizen  of  the  United 
States  owes  no  allegiance  to-day  to  the  King  of 
England,  even  though  there  were  no  sufficient 
reason  for  the  American  War  of  Independence. 
Any  secession  which  is  made  good  nullifies  the  act 
of  initiation  whereby  men  become  citizens  and 
subjects  of  a  temporal  State. 

Not  so  in  the  spiritual  kingdom.  Here  secession 
is  never  lawful  and  can  never  be  successful :  We 
can  never  make  good  a  break  with  the  Church  of 
Christ.  Schismatics  may  be  convinced  that 
separation  from  the  Mother-Church  is  not  only 
lawful  but  obligatory :  •  many  of  the  sixteenth- 
century  Reformers  professed  to  think  so  ;  that 
seceders  may  set  up  a  new  flag,  and  utterly  re- 

1  Ada,  pp.  22,  24-25. 


THEOLOGICAL  307 

pudiate  the  old,  so  constituting  in  the  eyes  of 
men  generally  a  new  and  perfectly  autonomous 
organization.  It  matters  not ;  the  old  flag  still 
claims  their  allegiance.  ^  The  original  act  of 
initiation  whereby  they  become  citizens  of  the 
Kingdom,  cannot  be  nullified.  In  this  respect  the 
analogy  between  Church  and  State  breaks  down. 
Schism  is  ever  abortive,  as  it  is  ever  inexcusable. 


^  "  Gum  (status  acatholicus)  est  Ohristianus  per  se  loquendo 
Ecclesia  habet  erga  eum  omnia  iura  sua ;  etenim  eius  rebellio 
eum  non  liberal  a  suis  oneribus  nee  minuit  Ecclesiae  iura  " 
(Cavagnis  :  Institutiones  luris  Publici  Ecclesiastici :  vol.  i, 
n.  563). 


APPENDIX  A 

Independent   and   Democratic   Theories   of 
Church    Polity 

Congregationalism. — Congregationalists  concede 
that  ecclesiasticism  is  fundamental  in  the  Gospel, 
but  refuse  to  admit  that  any  particular  form  of 
church  government  is  of  universal  and  permanent 
obligation.  Christ,  they  hold,  did  not  concern 
Himself  with  external  forms.  He  intended,  of 
course,  that  His  teaching  should  realize  itself  in 
a  dispersion  of  churches,  but  the  form  of  govern- 
ment in  each  He  left  to  be  determined  entirely 
by  the  local  community.  Congregationalism  holds 
strongly  for  the  absolute  independence  of  the  local 
church  and  for  the  elective  character  of  the 
ministry. 

The  text  Matt,  xviii.  20^  is  advanced  as  the 
charter  of  Independency.  ^  "  Congregational  In- 
dependency "  writes  Dr.  Dale  "  affirms  the 
enduring  truth  of  the  words :  '  wherever  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  My  name  there  am  I 


1  "  Where  there  are  two  or  three  gathered  together  in  My 
name  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them." 

2  When  they  first   "  dissented "   Congregationalists  were 
known  as  "  Independents." 

308 


APPENDIX  A  309 

in  the  midst  of  them.'  ^  .  .  .  These  great  words 
of  Christ  are  the  real  ground  and  justification  of 
the  independent  form  of  church  polity.  They  say 
that  when  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
His  name  He  is  in  the  assembly  ...  to  invest 
its  action  with  His  own  authority.  What  they 
bind  on  earth  is  bound  in  heaven,  what  they  loose 
on  earth,  is  loosed  in  heaven.  .  .  .  From  an 
assembly  in  which  Christ  Himself  is  present 
and  whose  decisions  He  confirms  there  can  be 
no  appeal.  .  .  .  His  authority  cannot  be 
challenged.    .    .    . 

..."  The  Church  "  the  writer  continues  "  is 
the  organ  of  Christ's  will  ^  in  deciding  in  cases  of 
doctrine  ^  and  of  discipline,  in  receiving  members, 
in  electing  and  deposing  its  officers,  and  in  regulat- 
ing its  worship.*  When  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  in  His  name  He  is  one  of  the  company ; 
their  decisions  are  His."  ^ 

All  this  runs  so  engagingly  that  it  seems  almost 
unkind  to  raise  difficulties.  But  we  can  scarcely 
help  inquiring  if  every  Christian  assembly  "  con- 
stitutes an  organ  of  Christ's  will.  Dr.  Dale's  reply 
is  interesting,  but  not  a  little  perplexing.  "  A 
church "  he  explains  "  speaks  and  acts  with 
Christ's  authority  only  in  so  far  as  its  members  are 


1 


op.  cit.,  p.  76. 
2  op.  cit.,  p.  75. 
=*  ib.,  p.  30. 

4  ib.,  pp.  74,  75 ;  cjr.,  p.  63. 

5  ib. 


310  APPENDIX  A 

gathered  together  in  His  name.  Those  who  have 
no  faith  in  Him,  no  love  for  Him,  to  whom  He  is 
not  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
are  not  gathered  together  in  His  name.  If  such 
persons  are  present  in  the  assembly,  then  to  what- 
ever extent  their  judgment  and  action  control  the 
Church  to  that  same  extent  .  .  they  divide  the 
members  from  Christ  and  prevent  them  from  being 
gathered  together  in  His  name.  The  power  and 
authority  of  the  Church  is  thus  diminished,  and 
if  such  persons  are  sufficiently  numerous  to  determine 
the  action  of  the  Church,  this  power  must  disappear 
altogether.^''  ^    We  refrain  from  comment. 

The  problem  of  church  polity  is  readily  solved 
on  Congregational  principles:  From  the  Acts  of 
the  apostles  and  in  the  apostolic  epistles,  we  are 
told,  it  is  possible  to  discover  the  general  outlines 
of  the  organization  of  the  first  churches  ;  but  there 
is  no  precept  by  which  this  organization  is  enforced 
on  the  churches  of  all  countries  and  of  all  times.* 
Apostolic  precedent  is  not  a  formal  law.  "  We  have 
to  distinguish  between  what  was  essential  and  what 
was  accidental,  between  what  was  permanent  and 
what  was  temporary,  both  in  apostoUc  action  and 
in  apostolic  precept."  ^  Christ  is  the  Supreme 
ruler  in  every  church.  His  will  concerning  the  con- 
stitution   and    administration    of   the   Church    is 


1  op.  cit.,  pp.  42,  43. 

2  op.  cit.,  p.  4. 

3  ib.,  p.  40. 


APPENDIX  A  311 

therefore  to  be  carried  out.  We  learn  His  will  in 
these  matters  by  allowing  ourselves  to  be  guided 
not  so  much  by  Sacred  Scripture  as  "by  the 
characteristic  spirit  of  the  Christian  revelation."  * 
The  Church  of  Christ  is  not  under  the  bondage  of 
the  "  letter  ;  "  it  has  the  freedom  of  the  Spirit.  ^ 

Office-bearers  in  apostolic  times,  it  is  contended, 
were  in  all  cases  elected  and  deposed  by  the  com- 
munity ;  and  every  church  was  independent  of 
every  other  church  and  governed  itself  without  the 
interference  of  any  external  ecclesiastical  authority.^ 
"  There  is  not  a  single  case  in  the  New  Testament 
in  which  any  Christian  assembly  acknowledges  or 
is  required  to  acknowledge  any  ecclesiastical 
authority  external  to  itself."  ^  The  apostolic 
churches  were  free  from  even  apostolic  control. 
Paul  could  only  tell  the  Church  of  Corinth  what  was 
the  will  of  Christ.^  "  With  a  courage,  with  an 
audacity  of  faith,  which,  when  we  look  back  upon 
it,  creates  astonishment,  the  apostles  trusted  every 
Christian  society  which  they  founded  to  itself."  * 

In  all  this  Dr.  Dale,  guided,  of  course,  by  "  the 
characteristic  spirit,"  finds  something  that  is 
essential  and  permanent  in  apostolic  action.  The 
modern  Church,  like  every  society,  must  have 
regularly  appointed  officers.'  "  Christians  who 
live  near  each  other,"  he  writes,  "  should  worship 

1  op.  cit.,  pp.  34  sqq.  ^  ib.  ^  ib.,  p.  7. 

*  op.  cit.,  p.  69.  5  ib.,  p.  71.         «  ib.,  p.  73. 

7  ib.,  p.  51. 


312  APPENDIX  A 

and  pray  together  .  .  .  and  should  ask  some  of 
their  number  to  teach  and  to  watch  over  them."  ^ 
Having  set  up  its  office-hearers,^  however,  the  com- 
munity remains  directly  responsible  to  Christ  for  the 
maintenance  of  His  authority  in  the  Church.  "  They 
must  not  only  elect  officers  but  regulate  their  own 
worship  and  determine  what  persons  shall  be 
received  into  their  fellowship  and  what  persons 
shall  be  excluded  from  it.  Hence  the  Church  must 
not  be  too  large  for  all  its  members  to  meet  regu- 
larly to  fulfil  the  trust  they  have  received  from 
Christ."  3    .    .    . 

Such  in  its  main  outlines  is  the  Congregational 
polity  as  set  forth  by  Dr.  Dale.  The  fundamental 
principles  of  Independency  were  first  formulated 
in  the  celebrated  "  Savoy  Declaration  "  drawn  up 
in  1658  by  "  elders  and  messengers "  from  the 
congregational  churches.  The  Declaration  holds 
rigidly  for  absolute  independence  of  the  local  church. 
It  states  that  "  in  case  of  difficulties  or  differences 
either  in  point  of  doctrine  or  administration, 
wherein  either  the  churches  in  general  are  concerned 
or  any  one  church  .  .  .  it  is  according  to  the 
mind  of  Christ  that  many  churches  ...  do 
meet  in  Synod  or  Council  to  consider  and  give  their 


1  op .  cit.  p,  26.  The  congregational  ministry  comprises  pastors, 
teachers,  elders,  and  deacons,  "  all  chosen  by  the  common 
suffrage  of  the  church  itself  (with  imposition  of  hands  of  the 
eldership  of  that  church  if  there  be  any  before  constituted 
therein)  and  solemnly  set  apart  by  fasting  and  prayer " 
(Savoy  Declaration). 


APPENDIX  A  313 

advice  in  or  about  that  matter  in  difference  to  be 
reported  to  all  the  churches  concerned :  Howbeit 
these  synods  so  assembled  are  not  entrusted  with 
any  ecclesiastical  power  properly  so-called,  or  with 
any  jurisdiction  ...  to  impose  their  determina- 
tion on  the  churches  or  officers."  Theoretically, 
therefore,  the  Congregational  denomination  is 
essentially  inorganic.  Each  church  constitutes  a 
separate  unit,  independent  and  isolated.^ 

Presbyterian  Independency.  — Congregationalism 
is  not  the  only  form  of  Independency.  A  com- 
munity of  Christians  may  possess  an  elective 
ministry  and  assert  its  absolute  freedom  from 
external  control,^  and  yet  be  far  removed  from 
Congregationalism.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  the 
latter  polity  that  the  commonalty  of  the  Church 
determine  finally  all  questions  relating  to  faith, 
external  government,  worship  and  administration. 
Having  elected  their  ministry  the  faithful  remain 
directly  responsible  to  Christ  for  maintaining  His 
authority  in  matters  of  doctrine  and  discipline.^ 
If,  however,  the  community  delegates  its  resjponsi' 
bilities  to  its  elected  officers  reserving  to  itself  no 
power  to  revise  their  decisions  authoritatively  it 
ceases  to  be  a  congregational  church.    It  is  directly 

1  cfr.  Cath.  Ency.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  239  sqq. 

2  Civil  no  less  than  ecclesiastical.  A  congregational  com- 
munity professes  to  acknowledge  "  no  head,  priest,  prophet 
or  king  save  Christ." 

*  Dale  :  op.  cit.,  p.  62. 


314  APPENDIX  A 

responsible  to  Christ  only  for  the  election  of 
ministers.  Such  a  polity  is  described  by  Dr.  Dale 
as  "  Presbyterian  Independency."  ^ 

Preshyterianism. — Presbyterianism  is  a  form  of 
polity  which  maintains  a  democratic  theory  of 
church  government  and  yet  is  properly  speaking 
neither  Congregational  nor  Independent.  Holding 
a  well  defined  middle  position  between  Indepen- 
dency and  "  Prelacy,"  it  is  avowedly  opposed  to 
both.  The  denomination  is  organized ;  and  all 
government  is  by  elective  bodies  corporate.  ^ 

The  local  congregation  is  ruled  by  the  Session, 
churches  within  a  limited  area  by  the  Presbytery, 
those  within  a  more  extended  area  by  the  Synod. 
The  General  Assembly  constitutes  a  Supreme  Court. 
The  Session  consists  of  a  council  of  ruling  elders 
presided  over  by  a  pastor  who  is  elected  by  the 
commonalty.  His  election,  however,  must  be 
ratified  by  the  Presbytery.  The  elders  are 
elected  absolutely.^  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Presby- 
terians while  holding  that  their  system  of  govern- 
ment is  truest  to  Scriptural  principles  do  not 
contend  that  Christians  become  unchurched  by  the 
adoption  of  a  different  polity.^ 

All  ecclesiastical  authority  has  been  directly 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  entire  membership,  and 

1  Dale,  pp.  76,  77. 

2  "  Presbyterianism  might  be  more  appropriately  named 
the  conciliar  system  of  chmreh  government  "  :  Lindsay,  op.  cit. 
p.  198.  3  f.jj.  Qath.  Ency.,  vol.  xii,  pp.  392  sqq. 

^  Lindsay :  op.  cit.,  introd.,  p.  ix. 


APPENDIX  A  315 

not  in  the  hands  of  office-bearers.^  This  authority 
is  delegated  to  a  representative  ministry  by  the 
faithful.  Its  source,  however,  is  the  presence  of 
Christ  promised  and  bestowed  upon  His  people  and 
diffused  through  the  membership  of  the  churches. 
The  ministerial  "  character  "  is  therefore  conferred 
"  from  above.'"  ^  The  Church  is  at  once  democratic 
and  theocratic.^ 

The  Church  is  sacerdotal.  Every  believer  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  a  priest.  The  faithful 
may  select  some  from  among  them  to  be  their 
ministers  and  thus  set  up  a  ministering  priest- 
hood ;  but  there  can  be  no  mediating  priesthood 
within  the  Christian  society.  "  There  is  one 
Mediator  only,  and  all,  men,  women,  and  children, 
have  the  promise  of  immediate  entrance  into  the 
presence  of  God  and  are  priests.*  .  .  .  The  con- 
ception of  a  mutilated  sacerdotalism    .    .    .    did 

1  Lindsay :  op.  cit.,  p.  30. 

2  The  stress  laid  by  Dr.  Lindsay  on  this  obvious  point  is 
quite  uncalled  for  {op.  cit.,  pp.  25,  33,  introd.,  p.  ix).  He  tilts 
at  windmills,  arguing  as  if  Presbyterianism  and  other  demo- 
cratic forms  of  polity  were  condemned  by  us  solely  on  the 
ground  that  a  ministerial  character  conferred  by  the  member- 
ship is,  oj  necessity,  "  from  below."  It  is  a  mistaken  idea. 
We  have  no  difficulty  whatever  in  conceding  that  a  ministry 
delegated  by  the  faithful  would  be  "  from  above,"  if  such  were 
Christ's  positive  arrangement.  We  contend  simply  that  as  a 
matter  of  fact  such  was  not  the  arrangement.  We  do  not 
discuss  what  is  true  or  false  '  of  necessity.'  The  question  is 
one  of  fact. 

^  op.  cit.,  p.  33. 

*  Lindsay  :  op.  cit.,  p.  35. 


316  APPENDIX  A 

not  appear  until  the  time  of  Cyprian  and  was  his 
invention.  1  Martyrdom,  fasting  that  we  may  have 
food  to  give  to  the  hungry,  prayers,  thanksgivings, 
almsgiving,  church  services,  and  especially  the  Holy 
Supper,  all  these  are  Christian  sacrifice— the 
sacrifice  of  self."^ 

1  Lindsay,  p.  37  n.  ^  j;^^  p  35 


APPENDIX  B 

Protestantism  and  Visible  Unity. —  The  external- 
ization  of  the  inner  life  of  the  Spirit  which  makes 
Christianity  a  fraternity — an  aSeXcf^or^^^  is  the 
sole  principle  of  visible  unity  conceded  by  Dr. 
Lindsay  to  the  Church  Universal.  "  Paul,"  he 
writes,  "  bent  his  whole  energies  to  break  down 
the  false  principle  of  continuity  which  placed  the 
succession  in  something  external,  and  not  in  the 
possession  and  transmission  from  generation  to 
generation  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  This  done, 
he  used  his  administrative  powers,  and  they  were 
those  of  a  statesman,  to  create  channels  for  the 
flow  of  the  manifestation  of  the  visible  unity  of  the 
Church  of  Christ." 

"  His  ruling  thought,"  Dr.  Lindsay  continues, 
"was  to  provide  that  all  the  various  Christian 
communities  should  manifest  their  real  brother- 
hood in  the  cultivation  of  the  '  fruits  of  the  Spirit.' 
The  method  of  carving  out  a  visibly  universal 
church  by  means  of  regulations  affecting  organiza- 
tion and  external  form  is  not  without  its  attrac- 
tions, which  are  irresistible  to  minds  of  the  lawyer 
type  and  training  such  as  we  see  afterwards  in 
Cyprian  of  Carthage.     It  seems  a  short  and  easy 

317 


318  APPENDIX  B 

method  of  showing  that  the  whole  Church  is 
visibly  one.  But  it  was  not  Paul's  method.  He 
seems  to  have  thought  as  little  about  the  special 
'  construction  of  sheep-folds '  as  his  Master.  He 
nowhere  prescribed  a  universal  ecclesiastical  polity, 
still  less  did  he  teach  that  the  universahty  of  the 
Christian  brotherhood  should  be  made  visible  in 
this  way.  He  regarded  all  the  separate  churches 
of  Christ  as  independent  self-governing  societies. 
He  strove  to  implant  in  all  of  them  the  priaciple 
of  brotherly  dealing  with  one  another,  and  he  dug 
channels  in  which  the  streams  of  the  Spirit  might 
flow  in  the  practical  manifestation  of  Christian 
fellowship."^ 

Dr.  Lindsay  suggests  a  few  forms  of  this 
"practical  manifestation."  Christians,  wherever 
resident,  should  assist  their  indigent  fellow- 
Christians  in  other  parts.  They  should  be  hospi- 
table towards  travelling  brethren,  maintain  a 
regular  inter-ecclesiastical  correspondence,  and  in 
general  extemahze  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  An 
all-round  love  of  one  another,  and  a  visible  mani- 
festation of  this  love — voilh  tout. 


1  Lindsay  :  o-p.  cit.,  pp.  20  sqq. 


INDEX 


Abiud,  195. 

Abraham,  11,  32,  82,  155. 

Adam,  172. 

Ad  versus  Haereses,  171  sqq. 

Agrippinus,  223. 

Alexandria,  211,  222. 

Ambrose,  96  (n). 

Anacletus  (Cletus),  123. 

Andrew,  97. 

Anicetus,  151,  200. 

Antinomianism,  35,  66,  149  (7^). 

Antioch.  2,  3,  8,  12,  23  sqq.,  27,  33  («), 

136. 
Apocalyptic    (kingdom),    18,    73,    76, 

81,  85,  106,  109. 
Apollos,  35,  56,  58. 
Apostolate,  30  sqq. 

Apostolic  churches,  175  sqq.,  191,  199. 
— —  Constitutions,  123. 

•  office,  30  (71),  93. 

succession,  126,  135,  159,  255. 

•  tradition,  175  sqq. 

Apostolicity,  255,  303. 

Apprentice-mission,  85. 

Aries,  Council  of,  245. 

Asia,  9,  29. 

Augustine,  96  (»),  123,  229,  232,  258- 

265. 
Aurelius,  171. 
Authority,  xi.  sqq. 
symbols  of,  xv.-xvi. 


li.  250. 
Baptism,  1,  5,  18,  24,  31,  42,  47,  89, 

89,  90  (n),  108,  120,  158,  170,  172, 

221  sqq. 

Jewish,  15  {n). 

Baptismal  Controversy,  221  sqq. 
Bardenhewer,  120  (w),  123-124,  129, 

137,  148,  153,  154,  166,  181. 
Bareille,  223. 
Barnabas,  8,  23  sqq.,  119. 
Basihdes,  238. 
Basihdians,  164. 
Batiffol,  8  («),  11.  15,  17,  21,  23,  48, 

65,  91,  108,  109,  128,  145,  147, 

215,  227,  231. 
Beelzebub,  77. 


Bellarmine,  301,  305. 

Bethany,  83. 

Binding  and  loosing,  power  of,  98, 105. 

Bishop,  121,  126,  131,  135,  136,  138, 

141,  196,  210. 
Bithynia,  9,  29. 
Boanerges,  96  (n). 
Body,  xiii.,  39  sqq.,  63,  64, 140,  193, 

194,  198,  258,259,  267,  272. 
Botms,  243. 
Brassac,  68  (w),  73  (n). 
Bryennios,  119. 

Caecilian,  243  sqq. 

Caeaarea,  24,  233. 

Callixtus,  206,  207. 

Cappadocia,  9,  29,  222. 

Carthage,  204  sqq. 

Catastrophe  (cosmic),  106. 

Cathohc,    71,    80   sqq.,   84,    118,    140, 

156,  187,  190,  198,  233,  255,  259, 

267,  269. 
Catholicism,   22    {n),    115,   117,    118, 

128—130 
Celsus,  155  (n),  166-168. 
Cephas,  33,  56,  58,  96. 
Cephasites,  33,  58-60. 
Chapman  (Dom),  96  (n),  118  (n). 
Character  (Sacr.),  262-265. 
Charismata,  10,  45  sqq.,  129. 
"  Christines,"  59-60. 
Church,  3,  15,  17,  22  sqq.,  39-66,  128. 

etymologically,  3  («). 

— —  invisible.  49. 

— —  local,  3,  5,  12,  122,  137,  210  211, 

268. 

membership  in,  194,  287  sqq. 

nature  of,  3  sqq. 

Oriental,  305. 

Roman,    130,     133,     143,     147, 

176  sqq.,  187,  189-192. 
— — ■  soul  of,  292  sqq. 
\mitv  (invisible)  of,    52-56,  85- 

89,  137,  194,  267,  273. 
unity   (visible)   of,   21  sqq.,  49- 

51,  89  sqq.,    137,  149,  157,   164, 

213,    220,    239,    256,   257,    27.3, 

302. 


319 


320 


INDEX 


Church  Universal,  4  (n),  19,  39,  43, 
49,  61,  104,  122,  140-142,  147, 
158,  169,  190,  194,  198,  212  sqq., 
235,  255,  258,  268,  270. 

Chrysostom,  24. 

Cilioia,  27,  233. 

CircumcellionB,  247-249. 

Clement  (Alex.),  120  {n). 

Clement  (Rom.),  122-135,  140,  153. 

"  Clementine  literature,"  123  (w). 

Cockle,  parable  of,  84,  108. 

Coelestius,  243. 

ColUg>,a,  20  (n). 

ColoBsians,  29,  47. 

Commendatory  (letters),  213. 

Confirmation,  54  («). 

Congregational,  25,  30,  90,  308. 

Congregationalism,  308-313. 

Constantine,  244. 

Conybeare  and  Howson,  34  (n),  59. 

Corinth,  6,  12,  16,  33  (n),  35,  66  sqq., 
124,  128. 

Corinthians,  45,  59,  131. 

Corpus,  48  (n). 

Crete,  8,  162. 

Cyprian,  204-241. 


Dale,  8  («),  25  sqq.,  35  («),  90,  134, 

135  (re),  30&-313. 
Damasus,  256. 
Daniel,  67  («). 
David,  8  (n),  67  (n). 
Deacons,  7,  121,  126,  135,  137,  148. 
Decian    (persecution),  204  sqq. 
Decree,  25  sqq. 

of  apostles  and  elders,  24  sqq. 

Definitive    (teaching),    62,    121,    1(52. 

270.  284. 
Demiurge,  172. 
Deposit,  29,  44,  61,  62,  121.  149,   160, 

161,  166,  167,  193,  258,  266. 
Derbe,  8. 

Development  (doctrinal),  37,  272. 
Diaspora,  20,  60. 
Diatessaron,  110. 
Didache,  119-122,  266. 
Diocletian.  242. 
Dion} sins  (Alex.),  233. 
Dionysius  (Cor.),  152. 
Dispersion,  20  ^qq. 
Dooetism,  137,  149. 
Dogma,  27  {n),  166. 

meaningof,281,  282. 

Domitian,  123. 
Donatists,  242-257. 
Donatus,  244-248. 


Duchesne,    11    (n),   21    {n),    186   (w), 

188  in),  232. 
Durell,  144  (w). 

Easter   (Controversy),    151,    188,    (n) 

199-203. 
"Ecclesiastical,"   76,  105-110. 
"E.KKKriaia,  3  (n). 
Elders,  7,  9,  25  sqq.,  29. 
Eleutherus,  171,190. 
Epaphras,  29. 
Epiphanias,  97,  123. 
Efhesians,  38. 
Ephesus,  8,  9,  38,  128,  133,  185,  200. 

Eschatological  (kingdom),  107. 
Eucharist,    90,    108,    120,  170,    219. 

224,  252. 
Eimomius,  246. 
Eusebius,  120  {n),  123.  148  (n),  162, 

198,  200,  232. 
Evidences  ^of  Christianity),  167. 
Excommunicate,    6,    108,    162,    202, 

203,  210,  213.  230,  231,  238,  260. 
Excommunication,  280. 
efiectof,  280,295-297. 

meaning  of,  280-281. 

Fabian,  208  («). 

Facundus,  232. 

Faith,  6,  18,  30,  44,  50,  62,  66,  87, 

99,  149,  152,  153,  157,  165  sqq., 

172,  266. 

rule  of,  166-170,  173-176,  258. 

"  False  brethren,"  32. 
Felicissimus,  208. 

Felix,  238. 

of  Abtughi,  243,  246. 

Fiat.  30. 

Firmilian,  227,  229,  231,  233. 

Firmus,  249. 

Flag,  as  symbol,  xv.-xvi. 

Florinus,  160. 

"Forms,"  113  (n.). 

Fornication,  28. 

Fortimatus,  235. 

Franzelin  (Card.),  301. 

Friedrich,  181. 

Funk,  181,  186  (n). 

Galatia,  9,  29,  33  (n),  233. 

Galilee,  23. 

Gildo,  253. 

Gnosticism,  34,  58,  150,  152. 

Gnostics,  34  sqq.,  137  (n),  172, 

Godliead,  39. 


INDEX 


321 


Gore  (B.).  53  (n),  92  (w),  99,  278-280, 

285-287. 
Gospel.  2  (n),  17,  19,  30  sqq.,  36,  57, 

61,   66,  83  sqq.  93,  106,  121,  141, 

157,  266. 
Grace,  35.  45,  65,  77,  162,  220,  224 

252,  256,  265.  267. 
Grapte,  153. 
Gratian,  249. 
Greeks,  7,  23  sgg.,  34. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  96  (n). 

Hamaok,  3  (n),  10,  11  (n),  15,  18  («), 
21  (n),  24,  32,  36,  54,  60,  68,  76 
(n).  79,  81-85,  90,  105  (n),  106, 
107  (w),  109,  113.  («),  115,  118, 
128,  177,  179-180,  181,  185  f?i), 
188,  192  (n),  269. 

Hartel,  214  {71). 

Hegesippus,  198,  199. 

Heil,  eternity  of.  162. 

Heresy,  57,  62,  66,  138,  142,  153,  162, 
164,  165,  168,  173,  187,  195,  198. 
214,  217-221,  251,  267,  270. 

effect  of,   297-299. 

meaning  of,  282-283. 

Heretics.  31,  62,  142,  15b,  157,  169, 
188,    197,    223-225,  233. 

Hermas,  153,  205. 

Herod,  96  (n). 

Heterodoxy,  137. 

Hitchcock,  40  (n),  49  (n). 

Holy  Ghost,  28,  221  (n),  225,  226 
228  (n). 

Honorius,  251. 

"Husk,"  116-118. 

Iconium,  8. 

I^natian  Epistles,  136  sqq. 

— — ■  authenticity  of,   136  (n). 

Ignatius,  136-148. 

Hlegitimacj'  (doctrinal),  116,  251. 

Imposition  of  hands,  221. 

Independency,  26,  28,  229,  308,  312, 

313. 
Infallibility,  30,  141,  269,  284,  285. 
Irenaeus,  96  (n),  110,  123,  148,  153  (n), 

171-198,  203,  260. 
Isaias,  68-73,  83. 

James,  9,  26,  33,  96. 
Jerome,  96  (w),  123,  223  (n). 
Jerusalem,  1,  2,  6,  7,  9,  21  sqq. 
John,  14,  23,  82,  84,  86,  96,  128,  133, 

147,  151,  200. 
Josephus,  8. 
Jubianus,  230. 


Judaisers,  24  sqq.,  30  sqq.,   58-60,  81, 

137  (n). 
Judaism,  11,  16,  20,  137,  268. 
Judas,  28. 
Judea,  2,  23. 
Julian  the  Apostate,  249. 
Jiilicher,  109. 
Jurisdiction.  29. 
Justification,  32. 
Justin   M.,  79  (n),  80  (n)  HO,  154  sqq. 

Kaywv,  141,  193,  201,  203,   212,   241, 

267,  269. 
XftporoyfiffauT ft,  8. 
Kingdom,  52,  71,  106  sqq.,  122. 
— • —  government  of,   92  sqq. 
in  SSTioptics,  74-86. 

keys  of,  98,  104  105. 

social  character  of,  89  sqq. 

Koipuvia,  1  (n). 

Lacedaemonians,  152. 

Lapsi,  66,  205-209. 

Libellatici,  205. 

Lightfoot,  120  (n),  123,  124,  130-133, 

136  (n),  138  (n),  144-147. 
Lindsay,  7  (n),  23  {n),  46  (n),  91,  94, 

132  (w),  133,  317,  318. 
Linus,  123. 
Logos,  155. 
Loisy,  106. 
Lucilla,  243,  244. 
Lutterbeck,  36  (n). 
Lyons,  171,  211. 
Lystra,  8. 

Macarius,  248. 

Macedonia,  6. 

MacRory,  46  (n)  56  (n),  59,  79,  92. 

Magisterium,  61,  62,  138,  142. 

Magnus,  223. 

Majorinus,  224. 

Manning,  53. 

Marcellinus,  251. 

Maician,  237. 

Marcion,  152,  164. 

Mark,  93. 

Martialis,  238. 

Mary  (B.  V.),  67. 

Matthew,  94,   107,   193. 

Maximianus,  250. 

Mecca,  21. 

Melchiades,  245. 

Meletian  (schism),  279. 

Memoirs  (of  ap.),  156. 

Menander,  164. 

Mensurius,  243, 


322 


INDEX 


Mesias,  1, 20,  67  sqq.,  83,  97,  163, 167. 

Meyer  (Ed.),  8  (n). 
Miracles,  163,  167. 
Montanists,  171. 
Morin  (Dom),  182-183,  186. 
Moses,  14,  21,  24,  69,  77. 
Mount,  Sermon  on  the,  82. 
Muratorian  (Fr.),  153  (Ji). 
Mysteries,  161  sqq. 

Nadab,  195. 
Nationalism,  82,  118. 
Nicomedians,  152. 
Novatian,  208,  223. 
Novatus,  208. 

Olympus,  246. 
Optatus  (St.),  123,  256. 

of  Thamugadi,  253. 

Origen,  34  (?i),  107  (n),  110,  153  (n), 

166-170. 
Orthodoxy,  138,  151,  152,  179,  187, 

190,  269. 
Outlawry,  xv. 
Overseers,  7,  9. 

Papacy,  130. 

Papias,  151. 

Parmenius,  257- 

Parousia,  106,  120  (n),  121. 

Paul,  2,  6,  8,  9.  16,  24  sqq.,  31,  37- 

64,  119,  143,  200. 

Pauhuism,     Christianity     and,    115- 

118. 
Paulus  248. 
Peter,  6,  9,  14,  23.  29,  31  sqq.,  39,  60, 

65,  96  sqq.,    HO   sqq.,    123,   136, 
143,  190,  192,  200,  229,  271,  302. 

Pharisee,  37,  86 

Phihppi,  6, 

Philippians,  139,  148. 

Pilate,  79. 

Plehs,  210. 

n\-{ipa>na,  39  sqq.,  87. 

Polycarp,   1.39,   147-151,   171,   199. 

Polycrates,  200-201. 

Pompey,  228. 

Pontus,  9,  29. 

"  Popular  "  (theories),  133  sqq. 

Prat,  57  (n),  59. 

Precursor  17,  82,  85. 

npfv^vrepos,  7  (n),  137  sqq.,  150,  151, 

167,  171,  175. 
Presbyterianism,  30,  314-316. 
Presidency,  143. 
Prima  dementis,  124  sqq.,  146. 


Primacy,  95  sqq.,  128,  143-147,  153, 
176  sqq.,  1881,  89,  192,  202,  203, 
211,  229,  234-239,  271-272. 

Primianus,  250. 

Privatus,  212. 

Prophet,  38,  49,  120. 

Proselytes,  34. 

Protestant,  96,  99,  136,  138,  145,  178, 
202. 

Protestantism,  49,  317,318. 

Qahal,  3  (n). 

Rabbinical,  73. 

Reason  and  authority,  159  sqq.,  166, 

258. 
Reformer,  196. 
Renan,  203. 
Rock-foundation,    97-104,    113,    193, 

229. 
Rhodes,  88,  89  («)• 
Rohr,  36  {n),  60. 
Romans,  29,  47,  144,  145. 
Rome,  21,  33  (n),  124.  128,  148,  178, 

198,  200,  269. 

Sabinus,  238. 
Sacramental  rite,  260  sqq. 
Sacrificati,  205. 
Sacrifice,  70-71. 
Samaria,  2,  23. 
Satan,  77,  149.  165. 
Satumihans,  164. 
Saul,  4. 
Scepticism,  79. 

Schism,  XX.,  13,  49,  56-64,  66,  124, 
164,  196,  214,  217  sqq.,  245,  262. 

Anslican  concept  of,  278-280. 

efficacy  of,  306  307. 

Great  Western,  276-278. 

meaning  of,  xx.,  274-276. 

morality   of,    63,  112.  113,  122, 

124.  126.  142,  143,  149,  170,  195- 
197,  198,  199,  217-221,  239, 
256,  257.  259,  273,  307. 

Schismatical,  34,  58,  .59,  209  231. 
Schismatics,   13,   142,   164,   170.   192, 

195,  196,  209  sqq.,  223,  235,  299- 

307. 
Schwartz,  202  («). 
Scribes,  86. 

Scripture,  101,  120  («),  173,  174. 
Seceasion,  xvi.  sqq.   xx. 
Secundus,  243. 
Shepherd  (of  H.),  153. 
Silas,  6,  28. 
Silvanus,  250. 


INDEX 


323 


Sin,  remission  of,  94. 
Sion,  21. 

Smyrna,  117,  171,  185. 
Social  body,  294  sqq. 
Society  : 

division  of,  xvi.  sqq. 

— —  membership  in,  xiv.  sqq. 
— • —  notes  of,  xi.  sqq. 
Sohm,  9,  30  (n).  129. 
Son  of  God,  67  (n),  87  (n). 

Man,  67  (n),  81. 

SoterioJogy,  86. 

Spirit  (Holy),  42,  45  sqq.,  66,  69,  127, 
130,  132,  143,  194,  198,  267. 

unity  of  the,  52  sqq. 

Stephen,  227-233,  238,  261  (h). 
Suarez,  275,  297,  301. 

Succession  (Ep.),  175  sqq.,  195,  199. 

Suetonias,  17  (n). 

Symbol  (creed),  193. 

Synagogue,  3  (n),  11  6qq.,  19  (n),  158. 

Syntagma,  155. 

Syria,  27,  120,  222. 

Syro- Phoenician,  81. 

Tertullian,  96  (n),  107  (m),  110,  122, 

144  (n),  154,  223. 
Theocracy,  71. 
Thurificali,  205. 
Timothy,  6,  8,  33. 
Titus,  8. 

Tischendorf,  110  (n). 
Tixeront,  34  (71),  174  (n),  181,  186  (w), 

205  (n),  211,  216  (n),  223,  234. 
Tradition,     121,     160-162,     159,  160, 

167,  169,  175  sqq.,  181-187,   190, 

195,  199,  212,  227  («),  258,  267. 


Traditores,  242  sqq. 

Trajan,  136. 

Truth,  80,  165  sqq.,  193,  195. 

Unattached  (brethren),  3. 

Uncial  (MSS).  96. 

Unity  (ecol.),  Anglican  principles  of, 

285  «97. 
Universalism,  82,  83,  117. 
Urban  (Rev.  J.),  300-307. 

Valentinians,  164. 

Valerian   (persecution),  204. 

Velehrad,  congress  of,  300-307. 

Vicar,  110. 

Vicarious  (atonement),   70. 

Victor,  188  (n),  201-203. 

Vine,  87,  267,  289. 

Vitandi,  138,  219. 

Ways  (Two),  120. 
Weizacker,  23  (n). 
Wellhausen,  68,  109. 
'  Wisdom,"  34,  197,  266. 
Wisdom-seekers,   35,   164. 
Word  (Divine),  77,  78,  150,  155. 
Wordsworth  (B.),  177,  189-193, 
Wright,  110  (n). 

Xystus,  233. 

Yahvism,  20  aqq. 

Zahn,  163  (n). 


2a 


DATE  DUE 

fJ^^'f^Smm 

^ 

^^„,^p««fl«lWI^ 

F 

GAYLORD 

PRIMED  IN  JS.A 

P''"'ceton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01032  7163 


